Am 23.03.2021 um 20:01 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 11:32:30 PDT Nibedit Dey wrote:
Any progress on QTQAINFRA-4200 ?
You can open the link and read for yourself:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-4200
There's absolutely no hurry to do this. And it needs to be
On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 11:32:30 PDT Nibedit Dey wrote:
> Any progress on QTQAINFRA-4200 ?
You can open the link and read for yourself:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-4200
There's absolutely no hurry to do this. And it needs to be synchronised with
the CI and everyone that uses
Any progress on QTQAINFRA-4200 ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:56 PM Edward Welbourne
wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> >>> We will wait for the Qt maintainers to take a call on this topic and
> >>> let us know the decision.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne
Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
>>> We will wait for the Qt maintainers to take a call on this topic and
>>> let us know the decision.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> Well, this mailing list *is* where and how the Qt maintainers make such
>> decisions, so
> * Wait a month, remove symlink, wait a month
I guess a week on each side will be sufficient, but please reserve some
time.
That said: +1
Cheers,
Robert
Am 15.01.2021 um 11:50 schrieb Volker Hilsheimer:
+1, thanks Eddy.
Cheers,
Volker
On 15 Jan 2021, at 11:41, Nibedit Dey wrote:
+1
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:19:56AM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 14 Jan 2021, at 23:23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I must have missed that. Could you share your idea again, it sounds
great.
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-September/037465.html
FWIW, I know it’s
+1, thanks Eddy.
Cheers,
Volker
> On 15 Jan 2021, at 11:41, Nibedit Dey wrote:
>
> +1
> Thank you Edward for the proposal.
> It sounds good to me.
>
> Best Regards,
> Nibedit
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne
> wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> > Qt5
+1
Thank you Edward for the proposal.
It sounds good to me.
Best Regards,
Nibedit
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne
wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> > Qt5 repo contains many branches and some have ambiguous names with
> > respect to the Qt version. e.g: It
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 23:23, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 02:08:43PM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>> Nevertheless, federating the declaration of the dependencies across modules
>> out to each module is the right idea, I think.
>>
> no, it's not. for tightly bound
Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> Qt5 repo contains many branches and some have ambiguous names with
> respect to the Qt version. e.g: It is not clear whether the dev branch
> is applicable to Qt5 development or Qt6.
That ambiguity, at least, would go away if the module were called
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 02:08:43PM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
Nevertheless, federating the declaration of the dependencies across
modules out to each module is the right idea, I think.
no, it's not. for tightly bound co-evolving packages, the vcs should
provide as much atomicity as
Thank you again everyone for the suggestions.
Most people have agreed that there is a need for simplifying the repo
nomenclature, build system, and scripts. This will attract contributions
from more Qt developers. People who have been using Qt for years are
familiar with the submodules, and the
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 14 January 2021 06:08:43 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>>> Same here. Please refrain from cooking up our own git submodule
>>> replacement soup.
>>
>> Hm, but dependencies.yaml already *is* our own “git submodule replacement
>>
On Thursday, 14 January 2021 01:50:57 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> $ ninja tst_class_I_fixed_check
>
> and ninja rebuilding everything that needs to be rebuilt across all modules
> before running the test is a huge timesaver.
And I learnt yesterday:
$ ctest -L cbor
Test project
On Thursday, 14 January 2021 06:08:43 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> > Same here. Please refrain from cooking up our own git submodule
> > replacement soup.
>
> Hm, but dependencies.yaml already *is* our own “git submodule replacement
> soup”, to some degree, isn’t it?
Not if I don't care about
On Thursday, 14 January 2021 01:28:46 PST Christian Kandeler wrote:
> On 1/13/21 11:46 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Like I said above, the latest tip of the branch for every single
> > module. This
> > recipe has worked for me for 10 years.
>
> I don't believe you.
It has.
Just one detail:
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 08:21, Nibedit Dey wrote:
>
> Thank you everyone for the suggestions.
> I posted in the development group as there was less participation on the
> topic in the interest group.
> Below are my suggestions:
> • Create a clean qt6 supermodule for better maintainability.
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 13:50, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
>
> On 1/13/21 5:28 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 05:37:21 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>>> * stop using git submodules
>>>
>>> Using them serves no real purposes anymore. We anyway have our own scripting
>>> in
On 1/13/21 5:28 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 05:37:21 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
* stop using git submodules
Using them serves no real purposes anymore. We anyway have our own scripting
in form of init-repository to avoid that people have to deal with that
stuff.
> On Jan 14, 2021, at 11:08, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jan 2021, at 22:58, André Pönitz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:48:45PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 10:17:02 PST André Pönitz wrote:
I have a product that depends on qtbase,
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> Volker Hilsheimer
> > I am not asking for *support*. I am asking how to find a recent
> > working combination of Qt modules that I need for porting some code
> > base to Qt 6. Don't tell me to use 6.0 nor to wait for some 6.x.
>
Volker Hilsheimer (14 January 2021 10:50) wrote:
> The init-repository script does some extra work that is supposed to
> give people a leg up though, such as setting up commit hooks and
> remotes in all submodules.
It also provides mechanisms for selecting what set of modules you want
checked
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 10:49, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 08:21, Nibedit Dey wrote:
> Thank you everyone for the suggestions.
> I posted in the development group as there was less participation on the
> topic in the interest group.
> Below are my suggestions:
> • Create
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 22:58, André Pönitz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:48:45PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 10:17:02 PST André Pönitz wrote:
>>> I have a product that depends on qtbase, qtdeclarative and qttool, and
>>> qtdeclarative and qttools refer to
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 17:28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 05:37:21 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>> * stop using git submodules
>>
>> Using them serves no real purposes anymore. We anyway have our own scripting
>> in form of init-repository to avoid that people have to
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 08:21, Nibedit Dey wrote:
> Thank you everyone for the suggestions.
> I posted in the development group as there was less participation on the
> topic in the interest group.
> Below are my suggestions:
>
>- Create a clean qt6 supermodule for better maintainability.
On 1/13/21 11:46 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Like I said above, the latest tip of the branch for every single
module. This
recipe has worked for me for 10 years.
I don't believe you.
Christian
___
Development mailing list
Thank you everyone for the suggestions.
I posted in the development group as there was less participation on the
topic in the interest group.
Below are my suggestions:
- Create a clean qt6 supermodule for better maintainability. It's still
not too late.
- If the qt5 supermodule is
On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 13:58:42 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > Any *product* is built with released versions of Qt, which means you
> > must have exactly the same releases of each module. No other
> > combination is supported.
>
> I am not asking for *support*. I am asking how to find a
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:48:45PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 10:17:02 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > I have a product that depends on qtbase, qtdeclarative and qttool, and
> > qtdeclarative and qttools refer to different and incompatible versions
> > of qtbase in
On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 10:17:02 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> I have a product that depends on qtbase, qtdeclarative and qttool, and
> qtdeclarative and qttools refer to different and incompatible versions
> of qtbase in their respective dependency.yaml files.
>
> How do I build Qt?
There's
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 01:37:21PM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> [...]
> The workflow with such a setup would not be fundamentally different
> from today. You clone one thing (build system repo instead of
> qt5.git), you run a script and tell the script what you want to work
> on to get all
On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 05:37:21 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> * stop using git submodules
>
> Using them serves no real purposes anymore. We anyway have our own scripting
> in form of init-repository to avoid that people have to deal with that
> stuff.
Please don't. In fact, I recommend
On Wednesday, 13 January 2021 04:18:53 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. IIUC, Qt 4 was a
> monorepo, that contained everything that's now in sub-modules; so the
> transition to Qt 5 was also the modularisation moment, calling for a new
> repo
Actually,
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 15:22, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>
> Volker Hilsheimer (13 January 2021 14:37) wrote:
>> Let me make a more radical proposal:
>>
>> The information about which modules depend on which others modules
>> lives in each module’s dependency.yaml file. This information includes
Cheers,
Tor Arne
On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:37, Volker Hilsheimer
mailto:volker.hilshei...@qt.io>> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:17, Dominik Holland
mailto:dominik.holl...@qt.io>> wrote:
Am 1/13/21 um 1:19 PM schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:07:00 CET NIkolai
Volker Hilsheimer (13 January 2021 14:37) wrote:
> Let me make a more radical proposal:
>
> The information about which modules depend on which others modules
> lives in each module’s dependency.yaml file. This information includes
> the sha1 of the modules it has last been successfully tested
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:17, Dominik Holland wrote:
>
> Am 1/13/21 um 1:19 PM schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
>
>> On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:07:00 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>>> that's ... kinda what you're supposed to avoid... at least as far as I
>>> understand the convo earlier. so
Am 1/13/21 um 1:19 PM schrieb Allan Sandfeld Jensen:
> On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:07:00 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>> that's ... kinda what you're supposed to avoid... at least as far as I
>> understand the convo earlier. so that two major versions aren't pushed to
>> the same repo
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:07:00 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> that's ... kinda what you're supposed to avoid... at least as far as I
> understand the convo earlier. so that two major versions aren't pushed to
> the same repo confusing people.
>
I don't see any problems with that. It is how
NIkolai Marchenko (13 January 2021 13:07)
> that's ... kinda what you're supposed to avoid... at least as far as I
> understand the convo earlier. so that two major versions aren't pushed
> to the same repo confusing people.
ah, I think I see the source of the confusion. IIUC, Qt 4 was a
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 12:31:50 CET Eric Lemanisser wrote:
that's the obvious choice, if it was not already used by qt4.
On 13 Jan 2021, at 12:38, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
mailto:k...@carewolf.com>> wrote:
>>> Then rename the qt4 repo, it is not actively maintained anymore and
>>> only
that's ... kinda what you're supposed to avoid... at least as far as I
understand the convo earlier. so that two major versions aren't pushed to
the same repo confusing people.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:04 PM Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:01:30 CET NIkolai
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 13:01:30 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> except when qt7 comes you'll be stuck with versionless qt6 branch that you
> wouldn't be able to move to qt7 because of aforementioned dependency
> breakages.
>
Why not? It would just be a new branch in the same repo
Best
except when qt7 comes you'll be stuck with versionless qt6 branch that you
wouldn't be able to move to qt7 because of aforementioned dependency
breakages.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:59 PM Tor Arne Vestbø
wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jan 2021, at 12:38, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
> >
> > On
>
> On 13 Jan 2021, at 12:38, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
> On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 12:31:50 CET Eric Lemanisser wrote:
>> that's the obvious choice, if it was not already used by qt4.
>>
> Then rename the qt4 repo, it is not actively maintained anymore and only
> stored for history.
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 12:31:50 CET Eric Lemanisser wrote:
> that's the obvious choice, if it was not already used by qt4.
>
Then rename the qt4 repo, it is not actively maintained anymore and only
stored for history. We couldn't do that when creating qt5 as it was still
actively
that's the obvious choice, if it was not already used by qt4.
Eric
Le mer. 13 janv. 2021 à 12:27, Allan Sandfeld Jensen a
écrit :
> On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 11:36:14 CET Nibedit Dey wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > Is there any plan to move the qt6 source code to a different repo (qt6)?
On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 11:36:14 CET Nibedit Dey wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Is there any plan to move the qt6 source code to a different repo (qt6)?
> Currently, the branch lies inside the qt5 repo.
> Is there going to be a Qt6 super module in near future?
>
If it is going to be a general
in practice, but it causes unnecessary
confusion for those not already in-the-know.
Regards,
Andy Nichols
-Original Message-
From: Development On Behalf Of Alex Blasche
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:56 AM
To: Nibedit Dey ; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt6 repo
Alex Blasche schrieb am Mi. 13. Jan. 2021 um
11:58:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Development On Behalf Of
> > Nibedit Dey
> > Is there any plan to move the qt6 source code to a different repo (qt6)?
> > Currently, the branch lies inside the qt5 repo.
> > Is there going to be a Qt6
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> Nibedit Dey
> Is there any plan to move the qt6 source code to a different repo (qt6)?
> Currently, the branch lies inside the qt5 repo.
> Is there going to be a Qt6 super module in near future?
Thiago's reply from the interest
52 matches
Mail list logo
