[cross-posting to k-c-d to get KDE dev attention]
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 14:51:49 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> - QtDBus changes:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/101967
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/102762
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/103731
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/103732
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 14:51:49 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/108334
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/108335
Also deferred now.
Just to give an idea how untenable the situation is right now, I was asked to
do a fix for indentation and everything broke again. The
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 14:51:49 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/114421
Ignore this one. I've just deferred it because I'm completely lost along the
patch reviews. It's an extremely valuable patch, but I can't get my head
around what I've done so far. We'll need to res
Incentive: when my count drops to below 90, I will begin reviewing other
people's changes again. It's currently at 111.
I'd really appreciate some help. Some of the changes are a simple matter of
getting reviewed. Some need more action, like identifying why something is
wrong.
Full listing:
ht
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 21:58:08 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> Fact is : you are severly overestimating the amount of cases where
> homoglyph is a problem at the same time severly underestimating the amount
> of code you broke and inconvenience caused by the change.
> The amount of people that has sin
Fact is : you are severly overestimating the amount of cases where
homoglyph is a problem at the same time severly underestimating the amount
of code you broke and inconvenience caused by the change.
The amount of people that has since agreed with my point of view in this
thread is a testament to t
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 18:42:20 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > People were warned in the changelog.
>
> I've already quoted Adams in JIRA, but this is exactly how changelog warnen
> users of Qt about this change:
> https://youtu.be/VGLFweev_iI?t=386
>
> Among panicking customers not understanding
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 09:44:23 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> While I'm generally trying to stay out of this debate, I'd like to toss
> in that a QString → QString or QString → QByteArray function that
> converts from "raw" to either C-style escaped or HTML-style escaped (or
> for bonus points, both),
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 09:28:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> qDebug() << "There was an error processing XYZ: " << job->errorString();
> qDebug() << "Error parsing file: " << fileName;
> qDebug() << "User entered: " << searchLineEdit->text();
>
> Imagine that in a app written in russian for russ
> People were warned in the changelog.
I've already quoted Adams in JIRA, but this is exactly how changelog warnen
users of Qt about this change:
https://youtu.be/VGLFweev_iI?t=386
Among panicking customers not understanding wtf is happening,
unintelligible message,
posted in the wrong place and
On 28.07.2015 09:28, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 27. July 2015 10:03:25 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> The whole thinking is that the use of operator<< for QString implies you're
>> trying to figure out why that string is the way it is, as opposed to trying
>> to convey a message.
>
> I think tha
I would repeat what I said in JIRA. Everything that Thiago explained makes
sense to me as soon as it does not break behavior of existing applications.
If global flag to enable escaping of QString contents is going to be
introduced then it should be disabled by default.
On changes that might break
On 2015-07-28 04:29, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> Isn't this needless convenience? Yet another environment variable that
> needs documenting? If you want to inspect the contents of a QString, can't
> you just add the suitable escape code to your own code? Forcing
> qPrintable() or qUtf8Printable
On 28 July 2015 at 15:28, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 27. July 2015 10:03:25 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> The whole thinking is that the use of operator<< for QString implies you're
>> trying to figure out why that string is the way it is, as opposed to trying
>> to convey a message.
>
> I thi
2015-07-28 9:50 GMT+02:00 Robert Iakobashvili :
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > On Monday 27 July 2015 20:44:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> On Monday 27 July 2015 21:41:44 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> >> > Yes,but this requires making override visible in every file of the
>
On 28 Jul 2015, at 10:48, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Monday 27 July 2015 20:44:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Monday 27 July 2015 21:41:44 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>>> Yes,but this requires making override visible in every file of the
>>> project.
>>
>> We can solve this by having a global #ifdef t
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Monday 27 July 2015 20:44:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On Monday 27 July 2015 21:41:44 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>> > Yes,but this requires making override visible in every file of the
>> > project.
>>
>> We can solve this by having a global #
On Monday 27 July 2015 23:21:02 Cristian Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Thiago Macieira
> mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> On Monday 27 July 2015 09:58:42 Gerhard Scheikl wrote:
> > > How is it licensed?
> >
> > Apache 2.0
>
> This is a deal-br
On Monday 27 July 2015 20:44:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday 27 July 2015 21:41:44 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > Yes,but this requires making override visible in every file of the
> > project.
>
> We can solve this by having a global #ifdef that can change the setting.
Or an environment vari
On Tuesday 28. July 2015 11:47:09 Tasuku Suzuki wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> 2015-07-28 1:34 GMT+09:00 Thiago Macieira :
> > On Monday 27 July 2015 19:27:44 NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> >> > Or just use qPrintable() around your strings.
> >>
> >> you do realize, that it will require editing thousands of
On Monday 27. July 2015 10:03:25 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The whole thinking is that the use of operator<< for QString implies you're
> trying to figure out why that string is the way it is, as opposed to trying
> to convey a message.
I think that's where the disagreement is.
I would think the u
21 matches
Mail list logo
