On 08/18/2014 07:12 PM, Tobias Doerffel wrote:
> I'd prefer http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtest-overview.html - it's
> well maintained, integrates much better and allows to test Qt-specific
> features and GUI stuff. Furthermore it doesn't introduce a new
> dependency/software requirement.
>
Does
Please uninstall prior. It reuses old registry settings during install.
IT WILL HAVE PROBLEMS if you don't uninstall first. This problem is all
too common
Uninstall old versions first.
Uninstall old versions first.
Uninstall old versions first.
:)
-
2014-08-18 21:12 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Aquilina :
> Anything in particular I need to download re the qt unit tests
???
--
___
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.
i've tried x64 for win7
maybe there was a previous version 0.4.14 because that folder i found in
menu, no new link on the desktop
codepage of program is probably different of the system, because
seetings->devices descriprion got wrong codepage
DirectSound was working very long (1s of 140 bpm was
Anything in particular I need to download re the qt unit tests
On 18 Aug 2014 18:12, "Tobias Doerffel" wrote:
> I'd prefer http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtest-overview.html - it's
> well maintained, integrates much better and allows to test Qt-specific
> features and GUI stuff. Furthermore it do
I'd prefer http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtest-overview.html - it's
well maintained, integrates much better and allows to test Qt-specific
features and GUI stuff. Furthermore it doesn't introduce a new
dependency/software requirement.
Toby
That is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
--
___
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Just in case anyone is interested in reading a bit more about it
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/cppunit/
Now my question is would we want to use the latest stable version or the
latest in version control?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
> I will look at gett
In terms of strings to translate you would not need to add new lines or
anything of that sort. Only the person who puts up the strings for
translations would need to manage that.
in terms of missing strings for translation. those would need to be brought
to the attention of the person who is in ch
So i understand you Jonathan, pootle would allow several peeps to do
simultanous translation on one 'file', eg the job of translating to a new
language could be split up between n peeps, making the 'task' less dounting,
and perhaps make more peeps intersted in participating?
How about security agai
win32 1.093
*installs
*opens
*preserve settings
*uses locale
*load older project
*replay
*saves
correctly & with no problems on xp
'Sanity-check' -Could you explain further?
Are there some /specific-areas/ (51's:) that should be tested/ looked at, or
should i just ho through everything?
--
Vi
I will look at getting my hands on it from the LO project. If anyone has no
objections I will start looking at integrating it.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> No, the package is pretty much abandonware. That's why LO took over
> maintenance and their version is the one in
No, the package is pretty much abandonware. That's why LO took over
maintenance and their version is the one in the distros. I (re)wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CppUnit accordingly.
On 18 August 2014 11:52, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Arent the fixes upstreamed?
>
> On 18 Aug 2014 12:43, "D
Arent the fixes upstreamed?
On 18 Aug 2014 12:43, "David Gerard" wrote:
> The LO version gets bugfixes.
>
> On 18 August 2014 11:17, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> > What is the difference in terms of using the original source vs the LO
> > version?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Dav
The LO version gets bugfixes.
On 18 August 2014 11:17, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> What is the difference in terms of using the original source vs the LO
> version?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Use the Freedesktop/LibreOffice version, it's actively ma
What is the difference in terms of using the original source vs the LO
version?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> +1
>
> Use the Freedesktop/LibreOffice version, it's actively maintained (LO
> use it extensively) and thus in the distros.
>
> On 18 August 2014 09:58, Jonath
+1
Use the Freedesktop/LibreOffice version, it's actively maintained (LO
use it extensively) and thus in the distros.
On 18 August 2014 09:58, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Hey guys I would loke to begin working on integration of unit tests and
> cppunit would be a good way to go for this. What do
Hello,
I think that the way we work on translations right now is ok. I also
like the fact that to submit my translation I had to know how to use
GitHub, and now I know how it works.
In terms of ease of translation, right now using QTlinguist and
uploading to github is a lot easy. I don't see
Hey guys I would loke to begin working on integration of unit tests and
cppunit would be a good way to go for this. What do you guys think?
--
___
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-dev
19 matches
Mail list logo
