On 2017-06-23 21:45, Adam Treat wrote:
On 06/23/2017 03:23 PM, Marc Mutz wrote:
[forgot to CC list]
On 2017-06-23 19:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 09:17:55 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
The above argument makes no sense to me. What value does quoting
download numbers for 5.9, an L
On 06/23/2017 03:23 PM, Marc Mutz wrote:
[forgot to CC list]
On 2017-06-23 19:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 09:17:55 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
The above argument makes no sense to me. What value does quoting
download numbers for 5.9, an LTS, have, to argue about dropping the
[forgot to CC list]
On 2017-06-23 19:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 09:17:55 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
The above argument makes no sense to me. What value does quoting
download numbers for 5.9, an LTS, have, to argue about dropping the
compiler from 5.10. Ever since we provide LT
> I somehow expect people to upgrade their compilers at the first chance
that they get
Yes, that's why most people (me included) upgraded the moment Qt started
shipping with msvc2015 binaries.
Everyone still stuck on 2013 is either under hard library
recompilation/dependency constraints or just do
On Friday, 23 June 2017 11:03:09 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > way too many people are using that compiler.
>
> And will still be using it one year from now.
I somehow expect people to upgrade their compilers at the first chance that
they get. If you're about to update Qt, might as well upgra
> way too many people are using that compiler.
And will still be using it one year from now.
If ppl are still stuck on 2013 now that vastly superior 2015 is out for
quite some time and for free to boot it's entirely unlikely anything will
change within a year.
More than likely they will stick with
On Friday, 23 June 2017 09:17:55 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> The above argument makes no sense to me. What value does quoting
> download numbers for 5.9, an LTS, have, to argue about dropping the
> compiler from 5.10. Ever since we provide LTSs (yes, once), we drop
> compilers in the version _after_ the
On 2017-06-23 17:52, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 04:43:02 PDT Alex Blasche wrote:
Him
I'd like to update and conclude this discussion.
After crunching the numbers, we have a 30% download ratio for MSVC2013
(compared to total Win downloads including 5.9.0). That's a very
sign
On Friday, 23 June 2017 04:43:02 PDT Alex Blasche wrote:
> Him
>
> I'd like to update and conclude this discussion.
>
> After crunching the numbers, we have a 30% download ratio for MSVC2013
> (compared to total Win downloads including 5.9.0). That's a very
> significant amount. Theerfore we cann
On 06/23/2017 10:08 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
I think send() should be fixed to support more than just strings as
parameters. For example in browsers
you can use send() with array buffers and blob objects. We don't support
the latter, but the former we do
and they are also our mapping for QB
Him
I'd like to update and conclude this discussion.
After crunching the numbers, we have a 30% download ratio for MSVC2013
(compared to total Win downloads including 5.9.0). That's a very significant
amount. Theerfore we cannot drop MSVC2013. At the same time the confirmation
was given that 5
Hi,
I think send() should be fixed to support more than just strings as parameters.
For example in browsers
you can use send() with array buffers and blob objects. We don't support the
latter, but the former we do
and they are also our mapping for QByteArray.
Want to give it a try? It shoul
Hi,
There is an integration sucks from last night for qtbase dev branch. And we
can’t restart coin to cancel it due to current 5.9.1 integrations. Hope we can
fix the issue this afternoon or a bit later today.
So please don’t stage changes in qtbase dev for now, thanks.
Best Regards,
Liang
___
13 matches
Mail list logo
