Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

On 9 January 2016 at 01:05, John Layt wrote: > > On 8 January 2016 at 07:18, Turunen Tuukka > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> This item was discussed at Qt Contributor’s Summit, please see session >> notes: http://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2015_LTS >> >> >> >> For compilers this is also documented

[Development] Design choice of QFileSystemModel

Anyone knows about the issue related to this thread? qt-forum . In concrete I wanted to know about this statement: "I can tell you that the filter is not being invalidated, but that there is a list within QFileSystemModel that conta

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

On Friday 08 January 2016 18:25:22 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > That's true for signals that depend on that particular kind of parent/child > relationship. But there are more ways in which a process can detach from its > calling process, and undoubtedly more ways to get notification signals from > a

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Friday 08 January 2016 10:52:14 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > I think you meant something other than startDetached. You can't get > notification signals from detached processes because they are detached. They > are meant to outlive the current application. You can't get S

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

On 8 January 2016 at 07:18, Turunen Tuukka wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > This item was discussed at Qt Contributor’s Summit, please see session > notes: http://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2015_LTS > > > > For compilers this is also documented to the Qt Base change log: > http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/t

Re: [Development] Expect delays in Continuous Integration today

And we should be back to normal :) Staging in all branches is enabled and we are a big step closer to producing the final 5.6 packages. Cheers, Frederik On Friday, January 08, 2016 08:12:43 AM Gladhorn Frederik wrote: > Hi all, > > > in order to fix https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-50065

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

On Friday 08 January 2016 10:52:14 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > What about the idea of a QProcess::startDetached variant that returns a > QProcess instance? That'd make sense (IMHO) if it's possible to provide > (at least) termination notification through the QProcess::finished signal - > and I don'

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

Sorvig Morten wrote: >> In other words, an API for gui-style launching of applications would probably >> need a flag to indicate whether or not a new instance is desired in case an >> instance is already running. > > How can you know what the target application prefers? (now or in the future).

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

> On 08 Jan 2016, at 12:56, René J. V. Bertin wrote: > > Sorvig Morten wrote: > >> But you seldom want to have two instances of (say) Mail running - you start >> it, or bring the existing one to front. So kLSLaunchNewInstance does not >> seems >> that useful in practice. > > It'd probably dep

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

On 08/01/16 11:24, Petroules Jake wrote: We're raising the minimum OS X to 10.8 (2012). The iOS minimum is still 6 (also 2012), but I wonder whether we should also raise that a version (or even two) considering its uniquely rapid upgrade cycle (frequently upgraded hardware, less user ability to o

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

Sorvig Morten wrote: > But you seldom want to have two instances of (say) Mail running - you start > it, or bring the existing one to front. So kLSLaunchNewInstance does not seems > that useful in practice. It'd probably depend on the application whether you want to be able to launch a separate

Re: [Development] QStateMachine and SCXML?

On Friday, January 08, 2016 09:14:25 AM Ch'Gans wrote: > Just discovered this few days ago: > https://github.com/KDAB/KDStateMachineEditor Heya, unfortunately KDStateMachineEditor has nothing to do with Vikas' request. KDStateMachineEditor can import/export SCXML from/to its internal state mach

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

Dear Robert, are you sure the apple store force to keep compatibility of the very first iOS version ?? From what I know, you can drop compatibility of older iOS version when you release a new version on the app store. And when someone install your app in an older phone, a popup appear warning the

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

On Jan 8, 2016, at 2:50 AM, Robert Iakobashvili mailto:corobe...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Jake, Unless app developers would like to drop their existing apps and rename/launch instead new apps, they're forced to keep compatibility with the very first iOS-version when their app was accepted to iTun

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

Dear Jake, Unless app developers would like to drop their existing apps and rename/launch instead new apps, they're forced to keep compatibility with the very first iOS-version when their app was accepted to iTunes Store. So, dropping iOS-6 is a not issue for me, but dropping iOS-7 - yes. jm2c K

Re: [Development] Minimum Deployment Platforms for 5.7 onwards?

We're raising the minimum OS X to 10.8 (2012). The iOS minimum is still 6 (also 2012), but I wonder whether we should also raise that a version (or even two) considering its uniquely rapid upgrade cycle (frequently upgraded hardware, less user ability to opt out of software updates). Bumping it

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

> On 08 Jan 2016, at 10:03, Ziller Eike wrote: > > >> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:14 PM, René J. V. Bertin wrote: >> >> Sorvig Morten wrote: >> >>> Another point: Isn't there a fundamental incompatibiity between >>> LaunchServices >>> and QProcess? LanchServices may ‘activate’ an already running

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

On Friday January 08 2016 09:03:36 Ziller Eike wrote: >> This is something that I think we have not yet taken into consideration. It >> doesn't necessarily matter for a "startDetached" form of launching though, > >If you just care about starting an application and being notified when it >finishe

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday 07 January 2016 22:14:47 René J. V. Bertin wrote: >> is OS X really the only OS where there >> exists a specific spawning API for GUI apps in addition to a more >> traditional Posix one? > > The burden is on you to prove this class would be beneficial in cross

Re: [Development] RFC: QProcess variant or separate class for launching applications "GUI-style"

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:14 PM, René J. V. Bertin wrote: > > Sorvig Morten wrote: > >> Another point: Isn't there a fundamental incompatibiity between >> LaunchServices >> and QProcess? LanchServices may ‘activate’ an already running process, while >> QProcess always starts a new process. That

[Development] Expect delays in Continuous Integration today

Hi all, in order to fix https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-50065 and others linked to it, we need to clean up the way we use -prefix in continuous integration. Up to now we used the source dir as prefix in many configurations while expecting make install to work, which is more of a hack tha