> To contribute to the actual question in this thread: I'd say let's support
> both for now. And the responsibility is shared: developers should check for
> "since 4.8" tags when looking at Qt api docs, and people using 4.7 to compile
> kde must accept that they'll sometimes hit a breakage due to 4
Am 24.01.2012, 23:59 Uhr, schrieb Boudewijn Rempt :
Yes, there's no difference. Try e.g. Choqok or Krita. First it shows a
gray rectangle, then hides it, then shows the main window (as a gray
rectangle) then paints the splash. This is new in Qt 4.8 and is not
dependent on the style.
Yupp,
On Tuesday 24 January 2012 Jan, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012, 23:53 Uhr, schrieb Boudewijn Rempt :
>
>
> > For one thing... In Qt 4.8, QSplashScreen is broken. The splash is only
> > painted over a gray rectangle once main window is shown.
>
> Tried with eg. plastique? (The background
Am 24.01.2012, 23:53 Uhr, schrieb Boudewijn Rempt :
For one thing... In Qt 4.8, QSplashScreen is broken. The splash is only
painted over a gray rectangle once main window is shown.
Tried with eg. plastique? (The background gradient painting of
oxygen/bespin/qtcurve could interfere with thi
On Thursday 19 January 2012 Jan, David Faure wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10:26:13 Thomas Zander wrote:
> > As far as I know there are no forward incompatible behavior changes between
> > Qt4.7 and Qt 4.8
>
> One can dream :-)
...
> There might be more.
>
For one thing... In Qt 4.8, QSp
Em Thursday 19 January 2012, Giorgos Tsiapaliwkas escreveu:
> On 19 January 2012 13:28, Lamarque V. Souza wrote:
> > Strangely that Gentoo does not include an ebuild (package) for Qt 4.8.
>
> No,it does. You just have to add the qting-edge overlay.
>
> http://gitorious.org/gentoo-qt/qting-edge/t
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10:26:13 Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10.11.58 todd rme wrote:
> > But according to Martin, this isn't just about API changes, it is also
> > about behavior changes. How do you expect people to know if they are
> > relying on a Qt 4.8-specific be
On 19 January 2012 13:28, Lamarque V. Souza wrote:
> Strangely that Gentoo does not include an ebuild (package) for Qt 4.8.
No,it does. You just have to add the qting-edge overlay.
http://gitorious.org/gentoo-qt/qting-edge/trees/master/x11-libs/qt-gui
--
Giorgos Tsiapaliwkas (terietor)
KDE Dev
Em Thursday 19 January 2012, Martin Gräßlin escreveu:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 12:53:25 Dario Freddi wrote:
> > Let's try to move the issue another way
> > round: can we think of a way in which we can safely make master depend
> > on new stuff without the risk of hurting these categories?
>
1.I understand the point "Qt 4.8 has new feature and we need them."
but I don't understand the point
"Qt 4.8 is difficult to be installed".
As Martin said some of the most popular distros have packages for Qt
4.8.(The same applies for gentoo).
Also for the distros that don't have Qt 4.8(note that
On Thursday 19 January 2012 08:52:48 Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Thursday 19 January 2012 08.15.39 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > As far as I know there are no forward incompatible behavior changes
> > > between Qt4.7 and Qt 4.8> I.e. AFAIK programming for 4.8 using 4.7 APIs
> > > but 4.8 behavior will
On Thursday 19 January 2012 08.15.39 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > As far as I know there are no forward incompatible behavior changes
> > between Qt4.7 and Qt 4.8> I.e. AFAIK programming for 4.8 using 4.7 APIs
> > but 4.8 behavior will give
> > the same behavior on 4.7.
> What comes to my mind is mul
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 12:53:25 Dario Freddi wrote:
> Let's try to move the issue another way
> round: can we think of a way in which we can safely make master depend
> on new stuff without the risk of hurting these categories?
Yes of course. First of all we have to think whether we introduce
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10:26:13 Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10.11.58 todd rme wrote:
> > But according to Martin, this isn't just about API changes, it is also
> > about behavior changes. How do you expect people to know if they are
> > relying on a Qt 4.8-specific be
2012/1/18 Thomas Zander :
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09.05.32 Dario Freddi wrote:
>> > if you remember there are a lot of people using KDE that are not 'core'
>> > developers. Typically they are one-time developers, they are artists,
>> > they are translators etc
> []
>
>> That said, I am in fa
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10.11.58 todd rme wrote:
> But according to Martin, this isn't just about API changes, it is also about
> behavior changes. How do you expect people to know if they are relying on a
> Qt 4.8-specific behavior?
As far as I know there are no forward incompatible behavio
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09.05.32 Dario Freddi wrote:
> > if you remember there are a lot of people using KDE that are not 'core'
> > developers. Typically they are one-time developers, they are artists,
> > they are translators etc
[]
> That said, I am in favor of moving to Qt 4.8 for a simpl
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 06.35.57 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>> I didn't say that this is a reason. I wanted to highlight the problem of
>> not depending on 4.8 and everybody using 4.8. I'm not going to start
>> reviewing code for "is this a
2012/1/18 Thomas Zander :
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 06.35.57 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>> I didn't say that this is a reason. I wanted to highlight the problem of
>> not depending on 4.8 and everybody using 4.8. I'm not going to start
>> reviewing code for "is this a Qt 4.8 change".
>
> Martin,
>
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 06.35.57 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> I didn't say that this is a reason. I wanted to highlight the problem of
> not depending on 4.8 and everybody using 4.8. I'm not going to start
> reviewing code for "is this a Qt 4.8 change".
Martin,
if you remember there are a lot of
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 17:06:26 Allen Winter wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2012 11:34:19 AM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Friday 13 January 2012 10:06:10 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 12 de January de 2012 22.50.24, Ingo
> > > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kl�cker?=> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > If you
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 11:34:19 AM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Friday 13 January 2012 10:06:10 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 de January de 2012 22.50.24, Ingo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kl=F6cker?=
> > wrote:
> > > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> > > test
On Friday 13 January 2012 10:06:10 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 de January de 2012 22.50.24, Ingo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kl=F6cker?=
> wrote:
> > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> > tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
> > s
On Friday 13 January 2012, Shaun Reich wrote:
> Some food for thought, as if this thread wasn't long enough...take a
> look at how much discussion or rejection was given on the dependency
> for Qt 4.7 back in 2010.
>
> i.e. nobody responded with objections or otherwise...
>
> http://lists.kde.org
Some food for thought, as if this thread wasn't long enough...take a
look at how much discussion or rejection was given on the dependency
for Qt 4.7 back in 2010.
i.e. nobody responded with objections or otherwise...
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=128500348631281&w=4
--
Shaun Reich,
K
On Friday 13 January 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 de January de 2012 22.50.24, Ingo
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kl=F6cker?=
> wrote:
> > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code
> > better tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers
> > to do so. I see no
On Friday 13 January 2012, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am 12.01.2012, 22:50 Uhr, schrieb Ingo Klöcker :
> > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> > tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
> > see no good reason to force developers to do so
Am 12.01.2012, 22:50 Uhr, schrieb Ingo Klöcker :
If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
see no good reason to force developers to do so.
I tend to agree that KDE should not add hard deps for "ma
On Thursday, 12 de January de 2012 22.50.24, Ingo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kl=F6cker?=
wrote:
> If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
> see no good reason to force developers to do so.
You know what ha
fredagen den 13 januari 2012 10.10.58 skrev Mark:
> +1 for putting a hard dep on it.
> Reason: my distribution already has Qt 4.8 (Archlinux) and Qt doesn't
> release new versions for nothing. It's new, generally better, thus should
> be used.
Mark, Qt is forward compatible and thus you can use 4
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 17:47:00 Shaun Reich wrote:
> Prompting motion for making Qt 4.8 a hard dependency for KDE
> 4.9/master. Currently kde-baseapps/plasma/folderview does not build
> against 4.7 due to an (albeit minor) api usage.
>
> Not sure how other areas in KDE fair against this, m
On Fri, January 13, 2012 9:10 am, Mark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
>
>> torsdagen den 12 januari 2012 22.50.24 skrev Ingo Klöcker:
>> > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
>> > tested with this version of Qt then simply ask deve
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
> torsdagen den 12 januari 2012 22.50.24 skrev Ingo Klöcker:
> > If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> > tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
> > see no good reason to force d
torsdagen den 12 januari 2012 22.50.24 skrev Ingo Klöcker:
> If you want developers to switch to Qt 4.8 to get the KDE code better
> tested with this version of Qt then simply ask developers to do so. I
> see no good reason to force developers to do so.
+1
--
Thomas Zander
On 01/13/2012 12:12 AM, Hugo Pereira Da Costa wrote:
Personally, I think making Qt4.8 mandatory for KDE4.8 without strong
reasons to do so raises the barrier a bit too high for casual
contributors willing to fix bugs. I personally find Qt harder to
compile than kde and am quite reluctant to upd
Personally, I think making Qt4.8 mandatory for KDE4.8 without strong
reasons to do so raises the barrier a bit too high for casual
contributors willing to fix bugs. I personally find Qt harder to compile
than kde and am quite reluctant to update, just to be able to still fix
bugs in oxygen.
H
On Thursday 12 January 2012, Marco Martin wrote:
> On Thursday 12 January 2012, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > Our distributions will ship 4.8 together with 4.8 and this
> > combination might just be untested by the maintainers. So I
> > strongly suggest that we make Qt 4.8 a dependency for master just
On Thursday 12 January 2012, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Our distributions will ship 4.8 together with 4.8 and this combination
> might just be untested by the maintainers. So I strongly suggest that we
> make Qt 4.8 a dependency for master just to get the code tested and fixed
> before distros use it.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> I don't think there is a feature which is a good reason, but a "bug". I am
> quite sure that there are still some issues around q_delete_all and the other
> changes in Qt 4.8 causing regressions.
> Our distributions will ship 4.8 together
On Wednesday 11 January 2012 17:38:11 Allen Winter wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2012 11:47:00 AM Shaun Reich wrote:
> > Prompting motion for making Qt 4.8 a hard dependency for KDE
> > 4.9/master. Currently kde-baseapps/plasma/folderview does not build
> > against 4.7 due to an (albeit minor) a
On Wednesday 11 January 2012 11:47:00 AM Shaun Reich wrote:
> Prompting motion for making Qt 4.8 a hard dependency for KDE
> 4.9/master. Currently kde-baseapps/plasma/folderview does not build
> against 4.7 due to an (albeit minor) api usage.
>
> Not sure how other areas in KDE fair against this,
41 matches
Mail list logo
