Edward Welbourne wrote:
> (Coptic being also from Ethiopia)
Uh, no. Coptic is from Egypt. According to Wikipedia, "Its years and months
coincide with those of the Ethiopian calendar but have different numbers and
names."
Kevin Kofler
___
Deve
On Thursday 09 February 2017 18:14:47 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 17:32:42 CET Marc Mutz wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 February 2017 10:41:05 Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > AFAICT, (2) could only possibly affect ICC and VxWorks.
> >
> > From the change set:
> >
> > - VxWorks uses
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 09:46:36 PST Lars Knoll wrote:
> The second larger issue are flaky tests, ie. tests that fail randomly from
> time to time. These tests are causing huge issues in CI, and especially
> make qt5.git integrations that are required for releasing and to get
> upda
On quinta-feira, 9 de fevereiro de 2017 12:04:03 PST Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > The header include/QtGui/QList is created since Qt 5.8.
> > It includes qevent.h and I guess this is because of
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/170513/
> > Who knows how to fix it?
>
> failing to fix the p
On quinta-feira, 9 de fevereiro de 2017 10:41:05 PST Marc Mutz wrote:
> 1. To have this patch merged for 5.8 instead of dev
I agree, because I consider that you're not changing behaviour. There should
be no one left using the fromUtf8 branch.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
On Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 17:32:42 CET Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday 09 February 2017 10:41:05 Marc Mutz wrote:
> > AFAICT, (2) could only possibly affect ICC and VxWorks.
>
> From the change set:
>
> - VxWorks uses GCC 4.8, that's enough.
> - The ICC minimum version since Qt 5.7 (cf. dist/
On Thursday 09 February 2017 10:41:05 Marc Mutz wrote:
> AFAICT, (2) could only possibly affect ICC and VxWorks.
>From the change set:
- VxWorks uses GCC 4.8, that's enough.
- The ICC minimum version since Qt 5.7 (cf. dist/changes-5._6_.0) is v14
(Unicode string literals were added for 12.1), s
Hello,
Building QtWebEngine 5.8.0 against Qt 5.8.0 installed in /opt/local, where can
the error below come from? An earlier build with the same configuration got
further but failed on what looks like a confusion between a headerfile from the
source tree and the installed QtWE 5.7.1 headers, so
> On 09 Feb 2017, at 13:11, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
>> Still: add to dev, too?
>>
> no. that's an equivalent of a cherry-pick, and we don't do that.
Agree. If you need it in dev as well, we should simply do the required merge.
L
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> Still: add to dev, too?
>
no. that's an equivalent of a cherry-pick, and we don't do that.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/d
On Thursday 09 February 2017 13:04:41 Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday 09 February 2017 12:40:35 Lars Knoll wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I’d say we push the branch we saw it failing on (but please feel free to
> > do a quick check whether you can find it failing in 5.8 as well before
> > pushing). That migh
Hi,
I don't see any modification to the test exclusion list of tst_QSempaphore (in
tests/auto/corelib/thread/qsemaphore) that isn't merged
all the way up to dev. The last one was from me back in June last year.
The merge of qtbase from 5.8 to 5.9 went through this morning.
Did you mean anot
On Thursday 09 February 2017 12:40:35 Lars Knoll wrote:
[...]
> I’d say we push the branch we saw it failing on (but please feel free to do
> a quick check whether you can find it failing in 5.8 as well before
> pushing). That might imply that we get multiple changes, but we won’t
> lower our test
> On 09 Feb 2017, at 11:52, Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> Hi Lars,
>
> On Wednesday 08 February 2017 10:46:36 Lars Knoll wrote:
>> Anybody who identifies a flaky test (ie. a test that is randomly failing in
>> CI), can blacklist that test; under one condition. He needs to at the same
>> time create a P0
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:57:56PM +0300, Alexander Volkov wrote:
> The header include/QtGui/QList is created since Qt 5.8.
> It includes qevent.h and I guess this is because of
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/170513/
> Who knows how to fix it?
>
failing to fix the parser (which may be tri
On Thursday 09 February 2017 11:57:56 Alexander Volkov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The header include/QtGui/QList is created since Qt 5.8.
> It includes qevent.h and I guess this is because of
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/170513/
> Who knows how to fix it?
- template <> class QList...
+ #defi
Hi all,
The header include/QtGui/QList is created since Qt 5.8.
It includes qevent.h and I guess this is because of
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/170513/
Who knows how to fix it?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://l
Hi Lars,
On Wednesday 08 February 2017 10:46:36 Lars Knoll wrote:
> Anybody who identifies a flaky test (ie. a test that is randomly failing in
> CI), can blacklist that test; under one condition. He needs to at the same
> time create a P0 bug report about it. Please also add the labels
> ‘autotes
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 10:52:10 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
>> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
>> what they mean
Thiago Macieira (8 February 2017 21:37)
> That's the differe
Hi,
https://codereview.qt-project.org/185059 proposes to remove support for the
fromUtf8() fallback of QStringLiteral, so we can finally guarantee that
QStringLiteral use will not allocate memory and will not throw.
I believe we can get away with it (see comment in change set for details)
sinc
Yes, please have a look at Qt Remote Objects, which has been a playground
project for a while. Brett is currently working on upgrading this to a
Technology Preview module for Qt. Before doing anything else with this module
it’ll be good to understand what the overlap and differences between thos
Hi Steve,
On Thursday 09 February 2017 00:52:03 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> In my opinion, the problem is sd-6 defining feature macros in the header
> that contains the implementation, instead of in a single header.
Indeed, this would have been a valid _other_ way to do things:
#include // conta
22 matches
Mail list logo
