On 27/02/14 11:28, "Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>
>> > so to come back to the starting point: i think we should continue to
>> > target the release branch directly. the burden for the developers
>>isn't
>> > very big (actually, one can even argue that the burden being there is
>>a
>> > good thing
+1
On 04 Mar 2014, at 13:51, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to nominate Ulf for approvership. He's been hacking on various bits
> and pieces in the profiler support in Qml and he also implemented a brand new
> profiler for the JavaScript engine.
>
> I'm convinced that he would make
Em qua 05 mar 2014, às 13:23:39, Turunen Tuukka escreveu:
> Whether or not you need to distribute the source code of your application
> as well as many other requirements depend on what you do and how you use
> Qt
Please note that if you ship Qt, you need to distribute Qt's sources. The LGPL
requ
On 05/03/14 11:19, "Tomasz Siekierda" wrote:
>On 5 March 2014 10:13, Ramakanthreddy Kesireddy
> wrote:
>> I have read something like below:
>>
>> Applications using Qt that use the open-source licenses need to follow
>>the
>> same license, so their source would need to be made available.
>>
>>
On 05.03.2014 10:11, BogDan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Can you please share the link with us, personally I want to wait until
> that patch goes in.
>
https://codereview.qt-project.org/79948
changes staged after 11:00 CET should not be rejected because of tst_bic
(hopefully).
--
Sergio Ahumada
sahum.
We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 3.1 beta:
Blog: http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/03/04/qt-creator-3-1-beta-released/
Download:
http://download.qt-project.org/development_releases/qtcreator/3.1/3.1.0-beta/
--
Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt
Digia Germany Gm
Hi,
Disclaimer: IANAL
No, the LGPL does not require the release of *sources* of your
application. However, there are extra requirements to the *binaries*
(especially related to being able to replace the Qt libraries you're
providing). In general, if you're using Qt libs from a user accessible
On 5 March 2014 10:13, Ramakanthreddy Kesireddy
wrote:
> I have read something like below:
>
> Applications using Qt that use the open-source licenses need to follow the
> same license, so their source would need to be made available.
>
> We are using Qt Open source license under LGPL v2.1 + execp
I have read something like below:
Applications using Qt that use the open-source licenses need to follow the same
license, so their source would need to be made available.
We are using Qt Open source license under LGPL v2.1 + execption.
Do we need to make our application source code available i
Hi,
Can you please share the link with us, personally I want to wait until that
patch goes in.
Thanks!
BogDan.
>
>T here is a fix coming for the bic test. (thanks Sergio) Not sure why it did
>not
> trigger a failure before for the commit that had the actual changes that
> cause
> these (
>
> Well, I pushed again the submit button (after I said a little pray) and it
> fails in the same please (it seems God doesn't like me anymore). I really
> don't believe it has something to do with the heavy multi-tasking on the CI
> machines (or with God) ... to me it looks that the test is
There is a fix coming for the bic test. (thanks Sergio) Not sure why it did not
trigger a failure before for the commit that had the actual changes that cause
these (false) warnings...
Laszlo
From: development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=digia@qt-project.or
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to push this patch:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,79826 but CI doesn't like me.
>>
>> Because CI seems to be based on luck, can CI folks give us a daily CI
> horoscopes forecast on this matter? E.g. if you are not born on the end of
> March
> and
On 05 Mar 2014, at 09:32, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> Sometimes though, we try to fix the autotests that fail the most frequently.
> If you can't reproduce the failure on your own machine, with the same OS,
> often the cause seems to be heavy multi-tasking on the CI machines, which
> will slow do
On 5 Mar 2014, at 9:01 AM, BogDan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to push this patch:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,79826 but CI doesn't like me.
>
> Because CI seems to be based on luck, can CI folks give us a daily CI
> horoscopes forecast on this matter? E.g. if you are not b
Hi,
I'm trying to push this patch:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,79826 but CI doesn't like me.
Because CI seems to be based on luck, can CI folks give us a daily CI
horoscopes forecast on this matter? E.g. if you are not born on the end of
March and you don't have have only two
16 matches
Mail list logo
