Ben spaketh:
> As one of those who is working towards being a new contributor, I
> would want a use a generally stable branch for most of the initial work of
> adding a new module; and then move it up towards "fire-hose" just prior to
> pushing it out to everyone.
>
> That is:
>
> - Grab the 6 m
On 03/08/2012 03:25, John Layt wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 13:26, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 12.02.45, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I intend to move both Qt 3D and Qt Location out of the essentials list and
>>> make them add-ons for now. They are fully usab
> From: Oswald Buddenhagen
> Subject: Re: [Development] Setting up time-based releases for the project
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:00:26AM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> My recommendation is that master be one of the two stable branches.
> That's
>> what people cloning from Git should g
On 08/06/2012 02:22 PM, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hello Qt-ians,
> << SNIP >>
>
> * The branches
>
> The three branches define a progression of decreasing rate-of-change and
> thus increasing stability.
>
> - Fire hose - the main development branch. It supports the minor release
>cycle.
On 07.08.2012 13:09, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
> While the two setups are very similar, almost isomorphs, they're not exactly
> so. There are important practical consequences that distinguish the two.
>
> - Releases happen on a fixed schedule
> - Minor versions have a defined lif
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:09:29 morten.sor...@nokia.com wrote:
> Is there a good reason for doing this update? We already have Jira to track
> tasks against Qt versions.
Bugs in JIRA don't tell us how many contributions are lost in the noise of
gerrit. Contributors uploading patches don't al
On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:52 PM, ext marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've done a query of all contributions older than 6 months, which have not
> yet been merged. It would be great if you could have a look to see which ones
> are obsolete and can be abandoned, and which ones are
On terça-feira, 7 de agosto de 2012 13.37.27, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 3) MSVC reportedly stores the exception specification in the mangled name.
> I have not been able to reproduce this with my MSVC 2010 and I haven't
> been able to reach Marius for confirmation yet. It could be either MSVC
> 201
On quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 14.50.04, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The macro expands to nothing in C++98 mode. That means code using the API
> so marked and compiling in C++98 mode will simply not gain the benefits of
> the keyword, but should see no side effects.
Updates on the noexcept wor
Sven Anderson wrote:
> On 07.08.2012 01:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On terça-feira, 7 de agosto de 2012 01.00.54, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>>> ---+--+-- fire-hose
>>>/ \ / / / / / / / / \ / / / / / /
>>> --+ +-+++
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:00:26AM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> My recommendation is that master be one of the two stable branches. That's
> what people cloning from Git should get.
>
well, HEAD doesn't have to point to master. but anyway, your point is
that HEAD should point to the semi-st
Hi,
On 07.08.2012 01:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 7 de agosto de 2012 01.00.54, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> ---+--+-- fire-hose
>> / \ / / / / / / / / \ / / / / / /
>> --+ +-+++ +-++-
On 7. aug. 2012, at 10:10, ext lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> In general I like the model. As Thiago said it's pretty close to what we've
> been discussing internally before we started Qt 5 development.
>
> I agree that we should kickstart the model after the beta release. Branch
> names should
Lars Knoll wrote:
> In general I like the model. As Thiago said it's pretty close to what we've
> been
> discussing internally before we started Qt 5 development.
>
> I agree that we should kickstart the model after the beta release. Branch
> names should be more concrete and for outsiders to un
On terça-feira, 7 de agosto de 2012 08.10.22, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> I agree that we should kickstart the model after the beta release. Branch
> names should be more concrete and for outsiders to understand, so I'm with
> Alan to give then easy to understand names. My proposal would be maste
On 7. aug. 2012, at 02:45, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:13:30 ext joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
>> Fire-hose is a development branch, things may be variously broken at all
>> times. Typically, developers in this mailing list will be tracking that
>> branch.
>>
>> Leaky-faucet is de
On terça-feira, 7 de agosto de 2012 09.46.18, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Friday August 3 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 23.57.58, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > noexcept(std::declval().f()) should work.
> >
> > error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct Object’
>
> Of c
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 08:10:22 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> * Depending on our policies, we might never need to merge back from stable
> to beta to master. Policy could simply be that beta and stable only
> cherry-pick changes from master, in which case there's no need to ever
> merge back.
Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2012 21:22:27 joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> -+--+-- fire-hose
>> \ \
>> -+-+--+++-+--++ leaky-faucet
>> \\\
In general I like the model. As Thiago said it's pretty close to what we've
been discussing internally before we started Qt 5 development.
I agree that we should kickstart the model after the beta release. Branch names
should be more concrete and for outsiders to understand, so I'm with Alan to
On Friday August 3 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 23.57.58, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > noexcept(std::declval().f()) should work.
>
> error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct Object’
Of course the type needs to be complete. How would the compiler know anything
a
21 matches
Mail list logo
