On Monday 11 August 2014 00:09:59 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > You're missing the obvious: there was a change and people were not ready
> > for it.
>
> that's hardly an argument, given that everybody who paid any attention
> at all knew that it would be *somehow* quite different (due to the
> dif
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 05:26:12PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Sunday 10 August 2014 19:55:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Because it changed compared to previous times. It's irrelevant that the
> > > previous times requ
On Sunday 10 August 2014 19:55:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Because it changed compared to previous times. It's irrelevant that the
> > previous times required such an action for technical reasons: it happened
> > that way. Now
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:51:53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > > >It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze
> > > >exception, I suggested and you
On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:51:53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> > >It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze
> > >exception, I suggested and you agreed that we would have the weekend
> > >to work on this and that the 5
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 10/08/14 17:02, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
> >On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
> >> >It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things.
> >> >It's also how we've done it for the past 4 feature releases
On 10/08/14 17:02, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> >It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
>> >also how
>> >we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the
>> >procedure
>> >without announcing a
I've done renaming to QStorageInfo
(https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/73945/); but i don't have time to review
correctly and build on Mac (however, it seems it should compile). Also, i'm not
able to compile on Windows at all and i will be able to compile on Linux
tomorrow.
Can someone try
On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
> >It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
> >also how
> >we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the
> >procedure
> >without announcing ahead of time and letting people comment.
>
> I thin
On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:42:49 Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> I'll try to find some time:) However, i'd suggest renaming QStorageInfo to
> QStorageWatcher and keep drive watching functionality.
I'm removing the whole class. Done at https://codereview.qt-project.org/91859
Adding the watch functionali
I'll try to find some time:) However, i'd suggest renaming QStorageInfo to
QStorageWatcher and keep drive watching functionality.
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 18:29, Knoll Lars написал(а):
> Agreed. Could you then do me the favour and create a patch for qtsystems
> that removes the class
Agreed. Could you then do me the favour and create a patch for qtsystems
that removes the class there?
Thanks,
Lars
On 10/08/14 15:59, "Иван Комиссаров" wrote:
>Ok, let it be QStorageInfo then, i prefer shorter names:)
>
>Иван Комиссаров
>
>10 авг. 2014 г., в 17:41, Thiago Macieira
>написал(а)
On 10/08/14 15:39, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Sunday 10 August 2014 10:58:24 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> lars' statement has no implications for the execution of the branching
>> procedure.
>
>It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
>also how
>we've done it for
Ok, let it be QStorageInfo then, i prefer shorter names:)
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 17:41, Thiago Macieira
написал(а):
On Sunday 10 August 2014 11:21:21 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
>
> I'm fine with that.
>
> I'm a
On Sunday 10 August 2014 11:21:21 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
I'm fine with that.
I'm also fine with QStorageInfo and removing the equivalent class from
(unreleased) qtsystems.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.co
On Sunday 10 August 2014 10:58:24 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> lars' statement has no implications for the execution of the branching
> procedure.
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's also how
we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the pro
On Sunday 10 August 2014 12:39:52 Mark Gaiser wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> > Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
> > https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac25480415
> > 03f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
> >
>
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> I was thinking a bit and made a conclusion that "volume" is the exact word
> for a mount point.
>
> Mac OS API uses "volume" to represent mounted disks
> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/CoreFoundation/Reference/CFURL
I was thinking a bit and made a conclusion that "volume" is the exact word for
a mount point.
Mac OS API uses "volume" to represent mounted disks
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/CoreFoundation/Reference/CFURLEnumeratorRef/Reference/reference.html
Windows uses terms "drives
Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
Cheers,
Lars
On 10/08/14 12:48, "Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:25:59PM +0400, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
>> Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
>>https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:25:59PM +0400, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
> https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
>
> Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but that's no
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
> https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
>
> Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but that's not corrre
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but that's not corrrect due to
network volumes, which are not "drives", actually.
An
I agree with Simon and Mark. Volume is a term that IMO will confuse most
people in this context. Storage sounds a lot better to me as well. Can we
please fix that? And a name change of course doesn’t block it from 5.4 :)
Cheers,
Lars
On 10/08/14 11:31, "Mark Gaiser" wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 9, 2014
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 12:58, Oswald Buddenhagen
написал(а):
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:26:34PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> 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 cr
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Hausmann Simon
wrote:
> 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
>
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:26:34PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
