On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
4. The QDoc commands and functionality are not known well enough by
For issue 4 I would like to point people to
http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qdoc/ this is the URL of the qdoc
manual. If everybody follows what is
1. Does the beta will coming in end of this month aka. April ?
2. Is there binary packages with this upcoming beta ?
2012/4/16 Rohan McGovern rohan.mcgov...@nokia.com:
jason.mcdon...@nokia.com said:
Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how
often those insignificant
Hi,
I just cut out the rest of the email for clarity. (great that you would
want to help)
I just want to talk about the inherits and inherited by problem.
Inherits should always work, because you compile the Qt code that way
(you cannot subclass a class that doesn't exist yet).
I just want to
On terça-feira, 24 de abril de 2012 14.48.10, techabc wrote:
1. Does the beta will coming in end of this month aka. April ?
No, probably a few weeks more.
2. Is there binary packages with this upcoming beta ?
That's the idea.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
TL;DR: We need to change the way Qt does documentation. A lot of things
will change and we need help from everybody.
This is granted, but as the whole Qt5 process looks, this will be for the good.
As mentioned by Lars: We
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nl wrote:
I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be
able to see relations between some major classes, like QObject -
QWidget.
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 18:49:34 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
On 4/12/12 5:06 PM, ext Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, ext Stephen Kelly wrote:
I'd like to see another model attempted next time, like all commits
going to
jason.mcdon...@nokia.com said:
Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how
often those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to
figure out which ones are actually working, and therefore should not
be marked as insignificant.
I'm glad you asked. I
On 4/13/12 7:34 AM, Lincoln Ramsay lincoln.ram...@nokia.com wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc
into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so
that we don't need the
On 4/13/12 10:32 AM, ext Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:42AM +, ext
casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
You are correct, that is what will happen, the same as the current
system.
The thing is that people have difficulty understanding
I've grepped through all the modules to create a list of these insignificant
tests, and listed them below. Please note that a test marked as insignificant
in essence provides us with zero coverage, since all results from those test
cases (although run) are completely ignored.
IMO, if
Another way tests have been disabled is using CONFIG += no_check_target which
seems to have been done when tests were initially disabled before the
insignificant_test option was added.
Actually, I think that came a little later (when the refactor branch was merged
into master). That mechanism
Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how often
those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to figure out
which ones are actually working, and therefore should not be marked as
insignificant.
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
The CI logs are publicly available, but
To help with this I would like to nominate Casper Vandonderen as the
maintainer for our documentation. I've already talked to him and he's
interested and willing to take the job. This doesn't mean he is
responsible for writing or reviewing all the documentation we have, but
his role would be
Hi everybody,
TL;DR: We need to change the way Qt does documentation. A lot of things
will change and we need help from everybody.
As mentioned by Lars: We should make sure the quality of the documentation
for Qt 5.0 is as high as possible.
To get and keep our documentation in shape for Qt 5.0
Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef:
Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files
around and make some things impossible.
The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same dependency
chain as when compiling the modules.
E.g. not allow
On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:35:45 André Somers wrote:
Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef:
Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files
around and make some things impossible.
The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 23:03:51 Robin Burchell wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I
will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to
our api back to master by
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, ext Stephen Kelly wrote:
I'd like to see another model attempted next time, like all commits
going to master, and a 'stable' branch which gets fast forwarded once
a week
that's besides the point. people must work on the bleeding edge.
bic/sic changes
While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above
are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly.
I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be
able to see relations
On Thursday 12 April 2012 16:30:39 casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above
are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly.
I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links
that span modules
There are 2 main problems with the current system:
1. Nobody was running make docs on their local machines (and verifying the
output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last
December. Having the documentation modularized will at some point
(hopefully soon) allow us to put
On 04/12/2012 06:12 AM, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
To get and keep our documentation in shape for Qt 5.0 and beyond I think
we will need to tackle the following problems:
1. The documentation is not modularized.
2. The documentation build system is hard to explain to people.
On 4/12/12 3:39 PM, ext Girish Ramakrishnan gir...@forwardbias.in
wrote:
Hi Lars,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:49 AM, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
hope many of you had the chance to take some time off over easter. I
certainly did.
Now that the alpha is out, there's work we need
On 4/12/12 7:27 PM, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com
casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote:
There are 2 main problems with the current system:
1. Nobody was running make docs on their local machines (and
verifying the
output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last
December.
2012/4/12 Stephen Kelly stephen.ke...@kdab.com:
I think it didn't work well.
While I'm not you, and you didn't really extrapolate on why you think
that, I do agree that it certainly wasn't perfect - but the times when
it wasn't perfect it was mostly things that either don't apply anymore
or can
On 04/11/2012 05:49 AM, ext lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
To help with this I would like to nominate Casper Vandonderen as the
maintainer for our documentation.
Great!
Jason has been leading Qt (and Qtopia)
releases a couple of times in the past within both Trolltech and Nokia. He
will be
Hi.
In general I applaud this effort.
I'm going to talk about some of the doc things Qtopia had. Most of this
came from our (infamous for being unmaintainable) mkdocs script. Given
the reputation that script had I'm not about to suggest we implement
things similarly in Qt but perhaps the
Hi,
We had cross-module links in both directions. We achieved this by
running qdoc twice per module. Once to get the .index (used for
resolving links) and again to build with the other modules' .index
files. The only way to avoid doing things twice would be to have more
intermediate steps in
On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc
into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so
that we don't need the depends. Because that would probably also mean
that you have to run
Hi everybody,
hope many of you had the chance to take some time off over easter. I
certainly did.
Now that the alpha is out, there's work we need to do to get things in
shape for a beta.
We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I
will merge the api_changes branch
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I
will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to
our api back to master by the end of this week, and close the branch after
that.
I
On 11 April 2012 13:49, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I
will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to
our api back to master by the end of this week, and close the branch after
that.
What about the
marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com said:
On 04/11/2012 07:49 AM, ext lars.kn...@nokia.commailto:lars.kn...@nokia.com
wrote:
** insignificant tests **
We still have quite some tests (around 110 in total) marked as
insignificant. This means they will be ignored by the CI system. Any help
to
34 matches
Mail list logo
