On 06/06/14 08:20, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>Em sex 06 jun 2014, às 14:00:19, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
>> I'd say, the 'dev' even does not be a complete words. so run a poll
>>sounds
>> be fair.
>
>Let's run at QtCS next week. I don't think we'll ever get a better
>sampling of
>people involved in
Em sex 06 jun 2014, às 13:50:07, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
> The people know the 'release' & 'stable' branch for a long time TOO.
> but it will gone for soon. right?
They will be gone not because they are confusing and people didn't know what
they mean. They are being replaced so that we have a diffe
Em sex 06 jun 2014, às 14:00:19, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
> I'd say, the 'dev' even does not be a complete words. so run a poll sounds
> be fair.
Let's run at QtCS next week. I don't think we'll ever get a better sampling of
people involved in Qt development.
Someone who feels strongly about the
I'd say, the 'dev' even does not be a complete words. so run a poll sounds
be fair.
2014-06-06 13:54 GMT+08:00 Hausmann Simon :
> Whether or not next is a better name than dev is your opinion, it isn't
> necessarily a fact. I for one like dev and find it a name better than next.
>
> We could ru
Whether or not next is a better name than dev is your opinion, it isn't
necessarily a fact. I for one like dev and find it a name better than next.
We could run a poll and see what name comes out and change to that. But is it
really worth the effort and disruption? I'm not convinced that it is.
The people know the 'release' & 'stable' branch for a long time TOO.
but it will gone for soon. right?
so, Why 'release' & 'stable' need to gone because some reasons, but 'dev'
does not? and we have a reason: better understand for many people will
touch Qt in future.
If we need to change the branch
Em sex 06 jun 2014, às 13:22:28, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
> I think 'next' work tell people, it's the next release, for now it's
> unstable.
> But 'dev' don't tell people anything.
> Because all of the branch should being develop state. except the release
> branch, e.g. '5.3.x'.
> Why this 'dev' branc
I think 'next' work tell people, it's the next release, for now it's
unstable.
But 'dev' don't tell people anything.
Because all of the branch should being develop state. except the release
branch, e.g. '5.3.x'.
Why this 'dev' branch is special?
Why don't use a better name?
2014-06-05 23:31 GMT+08
I am trying to create a plugin consisting of QML types but no C++ classes. I
built a simple QML file called MyPlugin.qml that starts with “pragma Singleton”
and resides in \MyPlugin. My qmldir file consists of
module MyPlugin
singleton MyPlugin 1.0 MyPlugin.qml
When I run
\5.3\mingw482_32\
Sergio, many thanks..
BR,
Denis
05.06.2014 19:00, Sergio Ahumada пишет:
> Hi,
>
> On 05.06.2014 16:52, Denis Shienkov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found it a little not clear:
>>
>> > the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
>>
>> but after week, where to need to do push new chang
El Wednesday 04 June 2014, Olivier Goffart escribió:
> Where is it? Do you have any URL?
He replied to my privately (by mistake I suppose) saying it was on github, so
after a search:
https://github.com/u19809/DynamicQObject
--
Alex (a.k.a. suy) | GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2
http://barnacity.net/ | http
Em qui 05 jun 2014, às 23:05:11, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
> Why do not change the 'dev' branch to 'next' ? or, just '5.4' instead?
> I don't got it for new branching scheme.
I don't see the point in renaming from "dev" to "next". It doesn't buy
anything new, other than confusion.
Renaming to "5.4"
Why do not change the 'dev' branch to 'next' ? or, just '5.4' instead?
I don't got it for new branching scheme.
2014-06-05 23:00 GMT+08:00 Sergio Ahumada :
> 5.4.0 => refs/for/dev
--
Best Regards
Yuchen
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-
Hi,
On 05.06.2014 16:52, Denis Shienkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found it a little not clear:
>
> > the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
>
> but after week, where to need to do push new changes? in /5.3.2 ? /dev? :)
see below
> > however, do not push new reviews for/stable
>
Hi,
I found it a little not clear:
> the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
but after week, where to need to do push new changes? in /5.3.2 ? /dev? :)
> however, do not push new reviews for/stable
but where then to do push for new reviews?
BR,
Denis
2014-06-05 18:39 G
hello,
we finally have CI setups for the new branching scheme. this means that
5.3 (and 1.0 in enginio) are now the target branches for stabilization
changes aimed at the 5.3.1 release.
the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks and will
be merged into 5.3/1.0 regularly, so you
On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 23:59:47 André Pönitz wrote:
> thanks to must-have features like "binary
> compatibility" (in the notable absence of any promise of behavioural
> compatibility) it's close to impossible to change a name, or even get it
> _out_ again.
As I wrote before, this Enginio situ
On 05 Jun 2014, at 00:25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 10:32:17, Olivier Goffart escreveu:
>> In general, i think it would be beneficial to have some public API in
>> QObject to create dynamic signals or slots.
>
> This has been asked from the QML-on-Go discussions. We just
Hi,
New snapshot here:
http://download.qt-project.org/snapshots/qt/5.3/5.3.1/2014-06-05_100/
Unfortunately couple of windows installers are missing (Android & msvc2012) :(
Qt5 changes in this snapshot:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,86473
Patch Set 6:
* qtbase 42f9a61...ac7bf97 (11)
On 05/06/14 00:22, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 11:12:11, Knoll Lars escreveu:
>> IMO it’s probably a mistake to bind the major so version number to the
>> number after Qt. There was a reason why Thiago wanted this, but I don’t
>> quite remember why.
>>
>> IMO it would be bet
20 matches
Mail list logo
