On Saturday 09 August 2014 17:12:43 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday 09 August 2014 21:39:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > the 5.4 branch was created now.
> >
> > i'll collect the re-targeting requests over the rest of the weekend
> > before doing the first batch, so don't get impatient just b
On 2014-08-09, at 04:33 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday 09 August 2014 15:56:57 Jake Petroules wrote:
>>> Not to mention that qmake has no QCoreApplication in the first place.
>>
>> It's a static method.
>
> I meant that the qcoreapplication.cpp file isn't compiled for qmake.
In any c
Hi,
I sincerely hope that the class name will be reconsidered, given how generic
and therefore ambiguous the term volume is. Please consider making it more
specific by adding Storage or something else to the name and avoid that people
guess wrongly and avoid people finding this class when they
On Saturday 09 August 2014 15:56:57 Jake Petroules wrote:
> > Not to mention that qmake has no QCoreApplication in the first place.
>
> It's a static method.
I meant that the qcoreapplication.cpp file isn't compiled for qmake.
> > That leaves out very important to us: Android and QNX. They fall
On Saturday 09 August 2014 21:39:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the 5.4 branch was created now.
>
> i'll collect the re-targeting requests over the rest of the weekend
> before doing the first batch, so don't get impatient just because
> there is no instant effect.
Considering the QVolumeInfo cha
On 2014-08-09, at 09:29 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday 09 August 2014 04:59:57 Jake Petroules wrote:
>> On 2014-08-08, at 07:52 PM, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>>> On Friday 08 August 2014 15:22:44 Jake Petroules wrote:
In qmake, can you explain why we can't use:
QCoreApplicati
the 5.4 branch was created now.
i'll collect the re-targeting requests over the rest of the weekend
before doing the first batch, so don't get impatient just because
there is no instant effect.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 10:16:37AM +0200, Iikka Eklund (via Oswald Buddenhagen)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:21 AM, charleyb123 . wrote:
> Just a silly question related to the Qt roadmap (I don't want to distract
> this weekend's Qt5.4 freeze-activity):
>
> Qt6 (and even Qt7) has been mentioned on this list in the past year, and I
> was curious if there were a "30,000-mile-high-v
As I understand it, the only reason for a major version bump from Qt 5
-> 6 is for backwards-incompatible changes, not new features.
> recall that the C++ Standards committee is looking at speculative work to
> support "modules"
Any modules implementation is going to have to have an associated
m
>> *- ?? Cross-process signals/slots (pretty please? ;-))
>
> Take a look at Replicant.
QtRemoteObjects (a.k.a. Replicant) hasn't been pushed anywhere public yet.
Ossi established the playground, but I'm still making some changes before I
push it.
Brett
On Saturday 09 August 2014 08:21:12 charleyb123 . wrote:
> *- ?? Qt3D advances
That's being worked on for Qt5 already. No need to wait for Qt6.
> *- ?? Cross-process signals/slots (pretty please? ;-))
Take a look at Replicant.
Bye
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wo...@kdab.com | Software Engineer
Just a silly question related to the Qt roadmap (I don't want to distract
this weekend's Qt5.4 freeze-activity):
Qt6 (and even Qt7) has been mentioned on this list in the past year, and I
was curious if there were a "30,000-mile-high-view" of what might be
"on-deck" for consideration.
A web-searc
forkfd will be in Qt 5.5.
We've been trying for the past few weeks to get forkfd and spawnfd[1] to work
on QNX 6.5 and we've failed. We have no clue why some tests still fail and we
don't have (or don't know we have) the necessary tools on QNX to do proper
debugging. For that reason, forkfd wil
On Saturday 09 August 2014 04:59:57 Jake Petroules wrote:
> On 2014-08-08, at 07:52 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> > On Friday 08 August 2014 15:22:44 Jake Petroules wrote:
> >> In qmake, can you explain why we can't use:
> >> QCoreApplication::applicationFilePath() + "/../bin", etc.?
> >
> > Beca
Hey,
the QtWebChannel module was included for Qt 5.4 over night - nice! But the
integration into QtWebKit is still missing, see
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/89086/
This patch is pretty crucial for 5.4, as otherwise the QtWebChannel usage will
be pretty cumbersome.
Bye
On Saturday 09
Thank you for notification. Please, re-rarget QVolumeInfo to 5.4 branch
(https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/73945/78).
And review patchset 78, someone:)
Иван Комиссаров
09 авг. 2014 г., в 12:16, Iikka Eklund (via Oswald Buddenhagen)
написал(а):
> Hi,
>
> the ‘dev’ branch is now temporaril
On 2014-08-08, at 07:52 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday 08 August 2014 15:22:44 Jake Petroules wrote:
>> In qmake, can you explain why we can't use:
>> QCoreApplication::applicationFilePath() + "/../bin", etc.?
>
> Because that might be completely different on other machines. The prefix t
Hi,
the ‘dev’ branch is now temporarily closed. From now on, all changes
targeted to Qt5.4.0 need to be pushed to ‘5.4’ branch (once available).
Note that Ossi will continue re-staging changes on dev that fail to
integrate for no fault of their own, until some reasonable deadline.
We will inform
18 matches
Mail list logo
