Thanks for bringing this up.
There was also a thread about namespaces last October:
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-October/007421.html
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There's a discussion at
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,
On terça-feira, 13 de agosto de 2013 00:04:43, André Pönitz wrote:
> 1. Having a couple of .qml, .png and whatever non-executable, but
> potentially target (resolution...) dependent resources loaded and
> "run" in some kind of viewer application.
>
> -> Smells like the resource system might be sui
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:02:55PM +1000, Chris Adams wrote:
> [...]
> However, what I do know for sure is that nobody ever tried to come up
> with a set of requirements and discuss the topic with the rcc
> maintainer.
>
>
> I don't know too much about the specifics of the qmlbundle implementa
On segunda-feira, 12 de agosto de 2013 14:32:34, Alan Alpert wrote:
> If sanity permissions are not granted to contributors, then I'd like
> to fix the web form so the sanity review isn't hidden, to decrease the
> chance of it getting skipped by accident. It has happened to others as
> well as I, a
> It appears that I was mistaken, and only approvers can +1 sanity
> review... New thread coming up, but that means that in the current
> process if the sanity review is not ticked then you'll have to ping
> the approver who +2'd it before you stage.
>
Fair enough. Thanks everyone.
Josh
_
> When you click review, there is a "Sanity Review" set of option
> buttons underneath the "Code Review" set. However it is folded up by
> default, you need to unfold it to see the options. Being slightly
> hidden like this is why it's relatively common for reviewers to forget
> to +1 the sanity wh
File an issue in here: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTJIRA
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Samuel Gaist wrote:
>
> On 12 août 2013, at 11:03, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
>
> > Søndag 11. august 2013 20.52.39 skrev Samuel Gaist:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Is there a way (without necessarily bug
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Josh Faust wrote:
>
>
>> Thiago covered it expertly, but I'd also suggest giving it some more
>> time if specific other reviewers have expressed interest in it (such
>> as by repeated comments). In a case like this one, where it has been
>> entirely a dialogue wit
>
> Thiago covered it expertly, but I'd also suggest giving it some more
> time if specific other reviewers have expressed interest in it (such
> as by repeated comments). In a case like this one, where it has been
> entirely a dialogue with the person who +2'd it, no waiting period
> seems necessa
> Unless it's controversial, or it's complex and you want to be absolutely
> sure,
> or one of the approvers asked for a second opinion, you can go ahead.
>
> Usually, multiple approvals are required for changes touching multiple
> parts
> of the code, where no one single person feels comfortable w
On segunda-feira, 12 de agosto de 2013 12:58:19, Josh Faust wrote:
> The Gerrit page says:
> "By default, changes required +2 for Code Review and +1 for Sanity Review
> categories to be approved"
>
> That's what is required by the review system, but what is desired? If I've
> added multiple people
No, go ahead.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Josh Faust wrote:
> The Gerrit page says:
> "By default, changes required +2 for Code Review and +1 for Sanity Review
> categories to be approved"
>
> That's what is required by the review system, but what is desired? If I've
> added multiple peopl
Thanks, I installed both binary and from source qt 5.1.1 that was announced
half a day ago on this mailing list and get same results: qt4 "QApplication
app(argc, argv)" executes 2-3 times faster on same computer than Qt5.
What are _your_ numbers on this issue and what OS are you using if not a
sec
The Gerrit page says:
"By default, changes required +2 for Code Review and +1 for Sanity Review
categories to be approved"
That's what is required by the review system, but what is desired? If I've
added multiple people to the review (or others have added themselves),
should I wait for all (or mos
regarding Macdeployqt ... here a more complete story about ...
[Development] Puzzled by desktop development priorities, Mac OS
specifically [Warning: Rant]
2013/8/12 Raul Metsma
> macdeployqt is broken
>
> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-32379
>
> Raul
>
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 5:5
Hello,
Qt 5.1.1 RC release testing has been started. We would like to kindly ask you
for help by testing the new packages.
1. Installer packages are available here:
http://download.qt-project.org/snapshots/qt/5.1/5.1.1-rc1/backups/2013-08-11-97/
2. Issues to be fixed for 5.1.1 release:
htt
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 07:37:57 BogDan wrote:
> >> This provides a improvement for me but it is not a complete solution,
> >>on
> >>
> >> android we load libQt5xxx.so my solution as it was still tried to load
> >> libQt5xxx.so.5 which doesn't exist as libraries are not symlinked on
> >> an
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:05 AM, André Pönitz <
andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 08:18:00PM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 August 2013 08:59:26 Alan Alpert wrote:
> > > I don't know specifically about why it wasn't built on top of QRC
On 12 Aug 2013, at 10:36, Robin Burchell wrote:
> The reader will be running or not, set here in QXcbConnection::QXcbConnection:
>
>m_reader = new QXcbEventReader(this);
>connect(m_reader, SIGNAL(eventPending()), this,
> SLOT(processXcbEvents()), Qt::QueuedConnection);
>connect(m_re
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Thiago Macieira <
> thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On domingo, 11 de agosto de 2013 23:16:36, Samuel Gaist wrote:
>> > out of curiosity I have checked what I could do but I didn't saw a
>> > differenc
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On domingo, 11 de agosto de 2013 23:16:36, Samuel Gaist wrote:
> > out of curiosity I have checked what I could do but I didn't saw a
> > difference in the web interface. Is there a quick reference guide
> somewhere
> > about that ?
>
> Y
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Koehne Kai wrote:
> We only do patch level releases for Qt 4.8.x, and you usually don't change
> reference configurations in patch level releases. That's also why we e.g.
> still released Qt 4.8.5 with a completely outdated MinGW 4.4, which is
> actually quite har
22 matches
Mail list logo
