+1.
Disclaimer: I'm guilty for convincing him to join the gerrit admin team :)
Paul
On 02/03/2020, 23:17, "Development on behalf of Andy Shaw"
wrote:
+1 from me too
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Development on behalf of Volker
Hilsheimer
Date:
Il giorno gio 27 feb 2020 alle ore 15:49 Tor Arne Vestbø <
tor.arne.ves...@qt.io> ha scritto:
> Hi Pier!
>
> First of all I’d like to strongly echo your thanks to Johan for his
> amazing work on QtWayland!
>
> The module is important to us as well, and we’d like to see it continued.
> As of now
+1 from me too
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Development on behalf of Volker
Hilsheimer
Date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 17:42
To: "development@qt-project.org"
Subject: [Development] Nominating Daniel Smith as approver
Hi all,
I’d like to nominate Daniel Smith as
+1.
Best regards,
Timur.
From: Development on behalf of Tor Arne
Vestbø
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 5:54 PM
To: Volker Hilsheimer
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Nominating Daniel Smith as approver
+1 !!
> On 2 Mar 2020, at
+1 !!
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 17:40, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I’d like to nominate Daniel Smith as approver for the Qt Project.
>
> Daniel has been working with Qt since he joined the Qt Company as a full-time
> employee in the Oslo QA team two years ago.
>
> He’s been
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 17:40, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I’d like to nominate Daniel Smith as approver for the Qt Project.
+1 he’s been doing a great job on several fronts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
Hi all,
I’d like to nominate Daniel Smith as approver for the Qt Project.
Daniel has been working with Qt since he joined the Qt Company as a full-time
employee in the Oslo QA team two years ago.
He’s been focusing on the QA infrastructure, which includes the test rigs for
the rendering
On 28 Feb 2020, at 21:33, Lars Knoll
mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote:
So to shortcut this discussion a bit: I am completely opposed to a massive SIC
changes/efforts for our signals (like giving them ugly names like
emitClicked(), or signal objects).
If people feel strongly, I am open to
On 02/03/2020 16:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 28/02/2020 15.33, Lars Knoll wrote:
This is all nice and fun to bike shed about, but I don’t think those
proposed solutions match the scope of the original problem (which
was relatively small). I don’t think a massive source compatibility
breakage
On 28/02/2020 15.33, Lars Knoll wrote:
> This is all nice and fun to bike shed about, but I don’t think those
> proposed solutions match the scope of the original problem (which
> was relatively small). I don’t think a massive source compatibility
> breakage is what we want, just because there is
10 matches
Mail list logo