On 26 Feb 2014, at 00:42, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> We are currently looking into a way to render a 10-bit image in QML.
I'm going to assume we're talking about Qt Quick 2.0.
As in 10-bit grayscale or GL_UNSIGNED_INT_10_10_10_2? In any case, you can
create a custom QSGTexture class which defines th
We are currently looking into a way to render a 10-bit image in QML.
Our first idea is to create an OpenGL context in C++ and use that in QML.
QML must be able to overlay text on this 10-bit OpenGL context.
What is the best approach for this? Is it possible at all?
Can we expose a QGLWidget, or so
[sorry for resending; I had a race condition between the left hand pressing
Ctrl+F1 to switch desktops and the right hand pressing Enter to add
newlines...]
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 22:06:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > > But I think you're suggesting something like this:
> > > >
> > > > A
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 22:06:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > > But I think you're suggesting something like this:
> > > >
> > > > A--B--C--D--> 5.3
> > > > \--E--F
> > >
> > > no, i'm suggesting this:
> > > A--B--C--D--E--F--> 5.3
> > > \--C'--F' ^ shadow/v5.2
> > >
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 15:50:39, Matthew Woehlke escreveu:
> On 2014-02-25 14:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
>
> What does that have to do with branch naming conventions?
>
> I'll grant that there is variance in the exact def
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 20:09:41, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > If it passes reliably within half an hour, no lockdown is necessary. The
> > > lockdown is only necessary today so the people doing the merging don't
> > > have to
On 2014-02-25 14:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Also, I don't know of any project that has a CI-controlled integration.
What does that have to do with branch naming conventions?
I'll grant that there is variance in the exact definition of "master".
Less so in the *existence* of the same.
--
Matt
> Hi,
> >
> > >- Have an "API review board", and for
> >
> > A review board would indeed be a good thing to have, not necessarily
> > restricted to API reviews only.
> >
> > The problem also currently is that reviewers are distracted by a lot
> > of mundane things (check for compilation, compiler
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 20:09:41, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > If it passes reliably within half an hour, no lockdown is necessary. The
> > lockdown is only necessary today so the people doing the merging don't
> > have to tear their hair out to keep track of two moving targets.
>
> eh?
> the m
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 13:13:14, Matthew Woehlke escreveu:
> To add an outsider perspective here... it's bad enough Qt doesn't follow
> the conventions (a) used by (nearly) every other git repository in
> existence and (b) unambiguously recommended by git itself.
Are you referring to patches to th
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
> > > of purpose, not "master".
> >
> > otoh, the deviation from the default leads to *e
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Friedemann Kleint
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >- Have an "API review board", and for
>
> A review board would indeed be a good thing to have, not necessarily
> restricted to API reviews only.
>
> The problem also currently is that reviewers are distracted by a lot of
> munda
On 2014-02-25 12:40, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
>>> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
>>> of purpose, not "master".
>>
>> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the branch
>> namin
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 21:51:02, Konstantin Tokarev escreveu:
> 25.02.2014, 21:48, "Thiago Macieira" :
> > Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 09:00:21, Wolfgang Baron escreveu:
> >> I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not
> >> using dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 18:26:19, Giuseppe D'Angelo escreveu:
> > Before merging a feature the maintainers consider if yes or not the
> > feature is ready for integration. If bad decisions are made, I don't
> > think the "time- based" releases have anything to do with that.
>
> It has to some degre
25.02.2014, 21:48, "Thiago Macieira" :
> Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 09:00:21, Wolfgang Baron escreveu:
>
>> I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not using
>> dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on all platforms
>> (including mswindows). I have not found it on
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 09:00:21, Wolfgang Baron escreveu:
> I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not using
> dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on all platforms
> (including mswindows). I have not found it on
> http://qt-project.org/wiki/New-Features-in-Qt-5.3
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 11:33:00, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity
> > of purpose, not "master".
>
> i don't think the clarity buys us much. like the rest of the branch
> naming stuff, it is really a minor detail for the ave
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 16:56:53 CEST, Mauro Brenna wrote:
> I looked a bit in the qt code and saw a bind() inside the QT5
> writeDatagram method, which I do not immediately understand but I do not
> know if might cause the issue.
Is there any difference in `strace` when you instrument the Q
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 08:02:17, Uwe Rathmann escreveu:
> last week we had the discussion about which version of Qt to use for a
> new project.
>
> What we have seen with Qt5 so far were 5.x.0 releases that were time -
> not quality - driven + only few maintenance releases ( 2 for 5.0, 1 for
> 5.1
Il 24/02/2014 19:35, Olivier Goffart ha scritto:
I am not sure what was exactly the problem in question you are referring to.
If I understand correctly you believe that some code will go into Qt 5.3
without being ready? (And that would have been beneficial to wait?)
Yes.
The good news is that
Em ter 25 fev 2014, às 15:32:21, Frederik Gladhorn escreveu:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> it sounds like you have a pretty good understanding what's going wrong here.
> Since this sounds like a real issue and it is still the test failure that
> blocks most integrations, it would be extremely great if we could
Hello,
I am facing an unusual behaviour related to the performance of the method
writeDatagram of QUdpSocket using two different version of QT ( Qt4.8.5 vs
Qt5.1.1).
I tested the same program both on Ubuntu between 4.8.1 and 5.0 and the
results are fine.
While on an emDebian arm platform, Qt5.1.1
Hi,
>- Have an "API review board", and for
A review board would indeed be a good thing to have, not necessarily
restricted to API reviews only.
The problem also currently is that reviewers are distracted by a lot of
mundane things (check for compilation, compiler warnings, check
indentation
Hi list,
Some months ago I posted a change on gerrit that would give all
delegate types access to the attached view property (e.g.
ListView.view). Currently this property is only available to the data
delegate which makes it hard to implement stuff like reusable
highlight delegates.
For whatever
Hi,
is there anyone out there still interested in reviewing minor patches
for the old/qt4 branch of qtquickcontrols?
Or should I just dump those on gitorious?
Nils
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mail
Hi Thiago,
it sounds like you have a pretty good understanding what's going wrong here.
Since this sounds like a real issue and it is still the test failure that
blocks most integrations, it would be extremely great if we could fix the
issue.
I know Peter and Tony worked on this, but so far the
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 09:32:45 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On Monday 24 February 2014 14:03:17 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 16:25:36, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
>
> escreveu:
> > > The situation seems to have improved, but I will probably need
On Monday 24 February 2014 14:03:17 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 16:25:36, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
escreveu:
> > The situation seems to have improved, but I will probably need to switch
> > to
> > gstabs mips[el] and possibly armel, our current build machines seems t
Thanks for the info!
BR,
Ismo
From: development-bounces+ismo.haataja=digia@qt-project.org
[mailto:development-bounces+ismo.haataja=digia@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
Sean Harmer
Sent: 25. helmikuuta 2014 10:55
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Upcoming Gerrit Upg
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 02:22:49PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
> > * We have one dev branch for all new development
>
> I.e., nothing changes. I propose this branch stay named "dev", for clarity of
> purpose, not "master".
>
i don't think
Mandag 24. februar 2014 14.22.49 skrev Thiago Macieira:
> Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:11:47, Knoll Lars escreveu:
I'll also only leave the relevant parts.
> > * After creating the branch for a new minor release we do a forward merge
> > from the previous branch before creating the alpha. The advant
Od: development-bounces+jedrzej.nowacki=digia@qt-project.org
[development-bounces+jedrzej.nowacki=digia@qt-project.org] w imieniu
Heikkinen Jani [jani.heikki...@digia.com]
Wysłano: 25 lutego 2014 09:59
Do: Thiago Macieira; development@qt-project.or
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=digia@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+jani.heikkinen=digia@qt-project.org]
> On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> Sent: 25. helmikuuta 2014 0:23
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Branc
Hi,
Please be careful! We were using 2.6 and suffered from this bug in
gerrit relating to the cherry-pick submission strategy:
https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2094&q=cherry-pick&colspec=ID%20Type%20Stars%20Milestone%20Status%20Priority%20Owner%20Summary
It also seems to affe
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:11:47 +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> So to sum it up, I believe the release model we currently have works
> pretty well, certainly better than anything we have had in the past.
Maybe I'm allowed to throw in the point of view of a user:
last week we had the discussion about whi
Hi all,
I read somewhere, that there are plans for a pure-Qt QtDBus (not using dbus-1) implementation in Qt-5.3, which would run on all platforms (including mswindows). I have not found it on http://qt-project.org/wiki/New-Features-in-Qt-5.3 however. Will it come in a later version? Is it cance
37 matches
Mail list logo
