Hi,
Yesterday morning at the Qt World Summit we had a session about contributing to
Qt. I was really happy to see over 80 people joining the session at 8 am before
the second day keynotes (and after a great party the previous evening). We
actually run out of chairs in the room we had booked
On 7/11/19 3:42 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 20:41:10 PST martin ribelotta wrote:
This question is in the air time to time but the information is very
disperse and not so convincent for me.
Actually in my understand, Qt need:
1) POSIX compliant base (pthreads?
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 20:41:10 PST martin ribelotta wrote:
> This question is in the air time to time but the information is very
> disperse and not so convincent for me.
>
> Actually in my understand, Qt need:
>
> 1) POSIX compliant base (pthreads? mmap? fork?)
>
> I can disable parts
Hi guys, I'm evaluate, for a client, the cost of port Qt to a bare
metal RTOS with minimal (realy minimal) requirements like freeRTOS,
mbedos etc (no mmu, no mmap, no filesystem, etc)
What is the minimal requirement to run Qt in a really minimal
platform? (for now, qt in my words is understand as
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:38:48PM +, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> want. Sample options:
> * keep 1900-1999, discourage use of ShortFormat;
> * rolling window based on currentDate(), as I described earlier;
> * we update startYear's default with each major release of Qt.
First option seems to
Hi,
On 05-11-19 14:44, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Hi all,
Prompted by [0], I'm looking at what century to use for years, when the
text being read is expected to be in a "short format" that only includes
two digits.
* [0] https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74323
tl;dr - how do folk feel about
On 11/6/19 1:38 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>
> Anyone want to make the case for keeping 1900--1999 as default ?
Yup, I'll bite, for the following reasons:
1) The downside of changing it is certain: breaking existing apps. In
particular, breaking the old code dealing with old data, which is
Eike Ziller (6 November 2019 09:45)
> It sounds to me like any automatically chosen base for 2-digit years
> will be wrong depending on use case.
You (among several others) make a compelling case.
> If you want to make it easier for people to implement their
> interpretation of 2-digit years,
> If you want to make it easier for people to implement their
interpretation of 2-digit years, you could add an (optional) explicit
window to the QDate::fromString API?
that would actually be very appreciated
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 11:46 AM Eike Ziller wrote:
> It sounds to me like any
It sounds to me like any automatically chosen base for 2-digit years will be
wrong depending on use case.
For some applications, only the past is relevant.
For some applications, dates N years into the future are relevant.
If we choose any N for a window, that can be wrong for some application.
Den tis 5 nov. 2019 15:48Kari Oikarinen skrev:
>
>
> On 5.11.2019 15.44, Edward Welbourne wrote:> Hi all,
> >
> > Prompted by [0], I'm looking at what century to use for years, when the
> > text being read is expected to be in a "short format" that only includes
> > two digits.
> > * [0]
11 matches
Mail list logo
