On 30/08/2018 09:14, Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 20:17, André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 06:27:57PM +0200, Jason H wrote:
It might be a minor point, but I think it would be good to have more uniform
kit name structure.
+1
I'd also suggest keeping these names as consise as possible. For
example, I don't see a need to keep "Qt" in kit name... I know it is
Qt, no need to mention that. So "5.10.1 Desktop MinGW" should be
enough.
+1 for a more uniform kit name structure.
However, I disagree to remove mention to "Qt".
I do use QtCreator to edit code which is not Qt code. QtCreator is a
very good IDE. I created my own custom kit for that. Thus I want to
easily identify kits which are Qt related from kits which are not.
Anyway, as Christian Gagneraud said, it will be hard to get a solution
that will fit everyone.
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
--
Cédric CARRÉE
Développeur Logiciel - BeSpoon
Tel: +33 4 58 82 88 88
web: www.bespoon.com
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
