> The file dialog takes up to 30 seconds to be usable if we're listing
> files on a USB or remote share with 10k files.
>
>
> The bottlenecks are QFileIconProvider::icon(const QFileInfo &info) and
> QFileInfo::isSymLink().
>
>
> I solved the icon problem by looking them up in the registry, by
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31:17AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Can we please agree on cleaning the dashboards up? Or, if we've
> > agreed, can we do it?
> >
> i think there was "consensus" to do it.
> however, it depends on
> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTQAINFRA-598 to find
>
On quarta-feira, 20 de março de 2013 18.52.40, Qi Liang wrote:
> Then this "Updating" notice doesn't have much meaning in this very short
> periode. I would suggest only important bug fix should go into stable
> branch. All general updates should happen in dev branch after the frozen.
> Better to h
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31:17AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Can we please agree on cleaning the dashboards up? Or, if we've
> agreed, can we do it?
>
i think there was "consensus" to do it.
however, it depends on
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTQAINFRA-598 to find
acceptance, and
On 20 March 2013 17:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> PCRE (*)
PCRE 8.31 and 8.32 do indeed introduce new features as well as fix
various bugs, so I'm a bit undecided whether it's worth including them
in stable at this point, although slightly inclined for the inclusion
(we won't use the new f
Hi,
On Wednesday 20 March 2013 19:31:17 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Can we please agree on cleaning the dashboards up? Or, if we've agreed,
> can we do it?
>
> My dashboard is unusable. For a few months now, I have stopped my daily
> look at the "Review Requests" section. As a result, I have mis
> Actually, the merges are already happening, so 5.1 *is* feature frozen.
>
> Please target your updates to stable if you're updating within minor (non-
> feature) releases of your third-party or if you're fixing important bugs.
>
> Updates for the sake of update should be in dev and will wait for
On quarta-feira, 20 de março de 2013 15.53.38, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the "lock" can be removed on friday evening, i think. at least i hope
> all integrations are done and everyone got that by this time.
Thanks for the update, Ossi.
I think you forgot to say the most important thing. So I wi
On quarta-feira, 20 de março de 2013 09.50.22, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> We're feature-freezing 5.1. It's time to verify if any of the third-party
> libraries we include in Qt need updating to newer versions. I recommend
> updating all of them to their latest versions.
Actually, the merges are alre
Can we please agree on cleaning the dashboards up? Or, if we've agreed, can we
do it?
My dashboard is unusable. For a few months now, I have stopped my daily look
at the "Review Requests" section. As a result, I have missed important reviews
of new features that should maybe be in 5.1, but will
>qtimageformats:
> libmng
> libtiff
libmng is some kind of obsolete, last release is 20030305.
I had two patches for libtiff, just not merged in before the BIG merge.
Resubmitted to stable branches already.
Regards,
Liang
___
Development m
Hi,
The file dialog takes up to 30 seconds to be usable if we're listing
files on a USB or remote share with 10k files.
The bottlenecks are QFileIconProvider::icon(const QFileInfo &info) and
QFileInfo::isSymLink().
I solved the icon problem by looking them up in the registry, by
extension, an
> qtbase:
> Harfbuzz
Done.
Konstantin
2013/3/20 Thiago Macieira :
> Hello
>
> We're feature-freezing 5.1. It's time to verify if any of the third-party
> libraries we include in Qt need updating to newer versions. I recommend
> updating all of them to their latest versions.
>
> Do we have
On quarta-feira, 20 de março de 2013 15.53.38, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> empirical evidence shows that People™ don't read announcments, and
> consequently are still staging changes meant for 5.1 (i.e., bugfixes to
> new functionality) to dev. these changes would miss 5.1, or need to be
> cherry-p
Hello
We're feature-freezing 5.1. It's time to verify if any of the third-party
libraries we include in Qt need updating to newer versions. I recommend
updating all of them to their latest versions.
Do we have volunteers?
Listing of third-party libraries (high-priority items marked with *):
q
moin,
empirical evidence shows that People™ don't read announcments, and
consequently are still staging changes meant for 5.1 (i.e., bugfixes to
new functionality) to dev. these changes would miss 5.1, or need to be
cherry-picked, both of which are bad.
consequently i have temporarily "locked dow
+1 to everything Hugo said.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Hugo Parente Lima
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Following what's described on Qt Governance Model I'm sending this e-mail
> to
> step down as maintainer of PySide and to propose/nominate new approvers
> and a
> new maintaner.
>
> Me and Marcelo Li
There are cases where the platform plugin needs to block and check if Qt
accepts an event or not:
- ShortcutOverride: tryHandleShortcutEvent is synchronous (uses
QGuiApplicationPrivate:: shortcutMap directly) and returns a bool.
- CloseEvent: The platform needs to know if Qt cancels the close
On 02/28/2013 08:50 AM, Mitch Curtis wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 03:33 PM, Motyka Rafal wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I would love for this to get some traction. It gets really repetitive
> asking for examples from the same people all the time.
> ___
> Development maili
On 03/20/2013 12:53 PM, Jocelyn Turcotte wrote:> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at
12:05:31PM +0100, Mitch Curtis wrote:
>> The idea of allowing everyone to set priorities for bugs originally
>> sounded risky to me, but the more I think about and discuss the
>> alternatives, the better it sounds. I'm going
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:05:31PM +0100, Mitch Curtis wrote:
> The idea of allowing everyone to set priorities for bugs originally
> sounded risky to me, but the more I think about and discuss the
> alternatives, the better it sounds. I'm going to propose something:
I see your proposition, but
On 03/18/2013 12:45 PM, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 3/14/13 1:00 PM, "Jason McDonald" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Anttila Janne
>> wrote:
>>> Jason McDonald wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On terça-feira, 12 de março de 2013 13.28.37, M
Hi,
when using qtwayland as client && server, then currently the animation speed
is way too high (~6x what it should be on my machine)
(got reported by at least one other person in #qt-lighthouse)
I've dug a little bit and found that:
BufferQueueingOpenGL (QPlatformIntegration::Capability)
i
It is not a bug. Try using "transformOrigin: Item.TopLeft"
For questions about usage of Qt, please post to qt-interest
(http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest)
cheers,
Gunnar
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:24 AM, hailong geng wrote:
> I think this is a bug , hope someone could tell me
I think this is a bug , hope someone could tell me how to solve this.
http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/25873/
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Hi,
Some merges have gone through already:
- QtActiveQt
- QtDoc
- QtGraphicalEffects
- QtImageFormats
but some others are failing, this is the case of QtMultimedia.
Who feels responsible or can take a look at the failing autotest? Is it a
genuine failure or just yet another flaky test ? Can it
> We should include instructions (or a link) to how to clone
> from Git and contribute.
The link is: http://qt-project.org/wiki/Building_Qt_5_from_Git
although it is not used on qt-project.org/downloads.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-projec
27 matches
Mail list logo
