On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:57:15AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 17.43.55, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > this is a self-contradicting interpretation. a minimal fully functional
> > change is not splittable (i.e., it's atomic). therefore no part of that
> > c
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Bache-Wiig Jens
wrote:
> I have been lurking in the discussion a bit but I guess it is time for me to
> pitch in. It is hard to keep up with 10 different threads at once. :)
>
> I find the idea of adding a new QCoreAction base class that is shared between
> QML
On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 17.43.55, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> this is a self-contradicting interpretation. a minimal fully functional
> change is not splittable (i.e., it's atomic). therefore no part of that
> change can legally exist on its own (i.e., satisfy the criterion of
> bein
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 07:46:39AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I don't think the feature is even enabled. We turned it on when we went live
> and immediately found problems with the implementation, some coming from the
> original description of the functionality. So we turned it off.
>
> Whe
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 07:49:26AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 13.57.16, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > another reason is that any sane commit policy prescribes atomicity on a
> > commit level, so forced grouping of commits isn't much of an advantage.
>
>
On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 19.55.03, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > I often read it as "it must be as small as possible" and sometimes my
> > commits are not testable by themselves.
>
> In my understanding, "small as possible" means "can be cherry-picked on its
> own"
Again, that's not
14.12.2012, 19:46, "Thiago Macieira" :
> On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 11.20.11, Koehne Kai wrote:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
>>> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
>>> Behalf Of
14.12.2012, 19:49, "Thiago Macieira" :
> On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 13.57.16, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
>> another reason is that any sane commit policy prescribes atomicity on a
>> commit level, so forced grouping of commits isn't much of an advantage.
>
> Note that "atomicity" h
On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 13.57.16, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> another reason is that any sane commit policy prescribes atomicity on a
> commit level, so forced grouping of commits isn't much of an advantage.
Note that "atomicity" here is ambiguous.
Ossi was referring to "this chang
On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 11.20.11, Koehne Kai wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
> > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sergio Ahumada
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 201
On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 15.27.23, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
> 2012/12/13 Stephen Kelly :
> >> I'd simply go for putting the binaries into a separate directory as
> >> discussed. The only side effect is that developers using Qt 5.0 will need
> >> to adjust their path to get qmake from Qt 5.
On 14.12.2012 13.00, "Sergio Ahumada" wrote:
>On 12/14/2012 11:54 AM, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
>>
>> Actually looking at the android version of gerrit which I presume would
>> be using the upstream version they have omitted the comments entirely,
>> merely using a "Code-Review +1" comment.
>> The
14.12.2012, 15:02, "Sergio Ahumada" :
> On 12/14/2012 11:54 AM, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
>
>>> Oh well, if you already feel offended by this phrasing, I guess you
>>> should get a thicker skin ... we've people from very different
>>> cultures and with varying English language skills in the commu
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=digia@qt-project.org]
> On Behalf Of Alan Alpert
> Sent: 12. desember 2012 21:33
> To: Mark
> Cc: development@qt-project.org; Bache-Wiig Jens
> Sub
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
> Tirsdag 16. oktober 2012 13.52.46 skrev Frederik Gladhorn:
> > I'd like to propose Shawn for approver status.
>
> It's been over 15 working days (and some extra), so congratulations Shawn :)
Thanks!
_
Tirsdag 16. oktober 2012 13.52.46 skrev Frederik Gladhorn:
> I'd like to propose Shawn for approver status.
It's been over 15 working days (and some extra), so congratulations Shawn :)
--
Best regards,
Frederik Gladhorn
Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt
Visit us on: http://qt.digia.com
_
2012/12/13 Stephen Kelly :
>> I'd simply go for putting the binaries into a separate directory as
>> discussed. The only side effect is that developers using Qt 5.0 will need
>> to adjust their path to get qmake from Qt 5. Once the chooser is available
>> that problem will solve itself.
>
> And if
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:50:16PM +, Jenssen Tim wrote:
> > (Rethoric: should this go to a more generic qt list?)
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > (First a side question, is there a more consequent documentation about the
> > use
> > of gerrit?)
> >
> > Is it only me that finds the "-1" review default
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenha...@digia.com> wrote:
> there was a blog post and a cross-post to several lists (including this
> one), announcing string freeze and inviting to translating and joining
> that list. i don't know what more you want.
>
Quite simp
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Sergio Ahumada
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:00 PM
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] [Qt-
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:34:41AM +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> The list seems to have gone alive on the 21st of November without any
> notice over here.
>
> Could you please announce it next time once a list is created? Thank you in
> advance.
>
there was a blog post and a cross-post to several li
On Friday 14 Dec 2012 11:17:14 Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> 14 days passed and there was no objections.
>
> Congratulations Mitch!
I'm sorry, that is not correct.
>From http://qt-project.org/wiki/The_Qt_Governance_Model
"Once seconded, a new Maintainer is appointed unless a community member
objects
On Friday 14. December 2012 11.17.14 Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> 14 days passed and there was no objections.
>
> Congratulations Mitch!
Oops it seems that It should be 15 working days. So not yet, I will have set
an alarm clock again... Sorry for the noise.
http://qt-project.org/wiki/The_Qt_Govern
On 12/14/2012 11:54 AM, Bache-Wiig Jens wrote:
>> Oh well, if you already feel offended by this phrasing, I guess you
>> should get a thicker skin ... we've people from very different
>> cultures and with varying English language skills in the community, so
>> you should just take things with a pin
Oh well, if you already feel offended by this phrasing, I guess you should get
a thicker skin ... we've people from very different cultures and with varying
English language skills in the community, so you should just take things with a
pinch of salt in general.
Anyway, the sentence is from the
On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-12-13, Jenssen Tim wrote:
>>> "I would prefer that you didn't submit this"
>>>
>>> reads to my brain much like "go f*k yourself" without the raw words.
>>>
>>> I get all the idea of the automating thing and all, and that machines have
14 days passed and there was no objections.
Congratulations Mitch!
On Monday 3. December 2012 12.30.22 Mitch Curtis wrote:
> Thanks guys!
>
> On Saturday, December 01, 2012 08:39:21 AM Knoll Lars wrote:
> > Another +1 from me.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lars
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Hausm
Op 14-12-2012 9:30, Koehne Kai schreef:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
>> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
>> Behalf Of Donald Carr
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:16 PM
>> To: Jenssen Tim
>>
On 2012-12-13, Jenssen Tim wrote:
>> "I would prefer that you didn't submit this"
>>
>> reads to my brain much like "go f*k yourself" without the raw words.
>>
>> I get all the idea of the automating thing and all, and that machines have no
>> emotion, but, if I don't miss something obvious (this
> Oh well, if you already feel offended by this phrasing, I guess you should
> get a thicker skin ... we've people from very different cultures and with
> varying English language skills in the community, so you should just take
> things with a pinch of salt in general.
>
> Anyway, the sentence
> There's a point though that a lot of people (including me) are using -1 for
> 'this requires more work', and -2 for 'the patch, or target branch is just
> wrong, please abandon'. So if the intention of the patch is fine in general,
> but contains some errors, I myself tend to give -1, though i
The list seems to have gone alive on the 21st of November without any
notice over here.
Could you please announce it next time once a list is created? Thank you in
advance.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Mitch Curtis wrote:
>
>> On Tue
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Donald Carr
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:16 PM
> To: Jenssen Tim
> Cc: development@qt-project.org; Cristian Tibirn
33 matches
Mail list logo
