On 9 October 2017 at 13:53, Alex Blasche wrote:
>
>>We would like to have two new repositories created to share the code publicly.
>>Name of the project: Qt KNX
>>Name of the project: Qt MQTT
>
> +1. Please add the repos to https://wiki.qt.io/Maintainers.
I've added the repos to
https://wiki.qt.i
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:30 PM, André Pönitz wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I would like to nominate Kevin Funk for Maintainer of the
> Build Systems/CMake area.
>
> Kevin is effectively doing the job today.
>
> Andre'
+1
--
Sergio
___
Development mailing li
13.10.2017, 23:37, "Thiago Macieira" :
> On Friday, 13 October 2017 12:30:59 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I would like to nominate Kevin Funk for Maintainer of the
>> Build Systems/CMake area.
>>
>> Kevin is effectively doing the job today.
>
> +1 from me
+1 from me too
>
> --
>
On Friday, 13 October 2017 12:30:59 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I would like to nominate Kevin Funk for Maintainer of the
> Build Systems/CMake area.
>
> Kevin is effectively doing the job today.
+1 from me
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - In
Hi all.
I would like to nominate Kevin Funk for Maintainer of the
Build Systems/CMake area.
Kevin is effectively doing the job today.
Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developme
On Friday, 13 October 2017 11:15:19 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> > Well, one of them is deterministic, but only if you know the seed which
> > comes from the non-deterministic one. So it's highly unlikely that you'll
> > be able to determine its sequence.
>
> Of course, but they have different characte
+1
I also really appreciate when a reviewer is up front about the steps
necessary to get the patch over the finish line. And if you are just
doing a drive-by review pointing out all the mistakes, but not willing
to +2 in the end then please state that up front as well. To be clear,
I'm not ag
I agree with all of your points except the one where you reject the fear model.
Just a single very simple example: Try to download Qt.
You can buy the commercial license right from the home page, but in order to
get the OSS version you have to click through numerous pages and have to search
for
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 13 October 2017 01:30:57 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
>> This sounds like a decent option to me. I'm don't quite like system() and
>> global() as names yet, as they don't really make it clear that one of them
>> is deterministic. Other t
Hi,
> On 13 Oct 2017, at 17:15, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think this thread is valuable, let's all spin it into something positive
> indeed. Let's discuss ways to make reviews nicer and faster indeed.
> Sorry for the top posting, I have random thoughts that I'll simply write d
On Friday, 13 October 2017 10:27:59 PDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On jueves, 12 de octubre de 2017 09:28:20 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The point of the ELF version was to help you the distributions detect
> > which
> > ones need rebuilding by having the symbol sh
On jueves, 12 de octubre de 2017 09:28:20 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
[snip]
> The point of the ELF version was to help you the distributions detect which
> ones need rebuilding by having the symbol show up. Having the symbol rename
> all the time doesn't make the distro-building more robust, since
Hi all, my 5-cents:
QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. :)
QBS needs still in BinaryFiles support (e.g. to allow todo patching, merge
for some output
files using custom algorithms), better QtC integration (e.g. with Android
&& iOS).
In other things QBS is ve
+1 from me, just an addendum:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 05:15:03PM +0200, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> That does not mean we should ignore anyone or be disrespectful. I expect
> everyone independent of employer to be positive and friendly in reviews.
> Reviews are sadly negative by natu
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:19:51PM +0100, Sergio Martins wrote:
> On 2017-10-13 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:56:47 PDT Sergio Martins wrote:
> >> IMHO the qt-project is not in a position to reject Qt building with
> >> qbs, simply because there's no other implemen
> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8
> a complete CMake build for Qt was already contributed upstream (quite
some time ago) .. and rejected ..
---
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name
On
On 2017-10-13 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:56:47 PDT Sergio Martins wrote:
IMHO the qt-project is not in a position to reject Qt building with
qbs,
simply because there's no other implementation, nobody is going to
port
Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new th
Hi all,
I think this thread is valuable, let's all spin it into something positive
indeed. Let's discuss ways to make reviews nicer and faster indeed.
Sorry for the top posting, I have random thoughts that I'll simply write down
not directly responding to any of the points.
Please just forget a
On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:56:47 PDT Sergio Martins wrote:
> IMHO the qt-project is not in a position to reject Qt building with qbs,
> simply because there's no other implementation, nobody is going to port
> Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread).
There are volunteers to do that. Th
On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:05:36 PDT Sérgio Martins wrote:
> In defense of Viktor:
>
> With some better wording (and no per-company aspect), the Open
> Governance model already provides for something like that, since it's
> a meritocracy.
> It's not outlandish if you spend more time reviewing a
On Friday, 13 October 2017 06:13:16 PDT Viktor Engelmann wrote:
> > Anyone with approver rights should be aware of his powers and use them
> > carefully, no matter if he is employed at The Qt Company or an
> > external contributor.
>
> Sure - but let's think about this in a different context: imag
Hi,
At the QtCS it was mentioned that maybe qbs could use JavaScriptCore and
std:: types,
at first I thought this was for making it easy for qbs to be a non-Qt
project, but then I realized it was for boot-strapping purposes.
I don't know if you have a vision, but given that most other build
On Friday, 13 October 2017 04:04:46 PDT Viktor Engelmann wrote:
> 5. Set a deadline for criticism on the general approach to a change.
> Too often I have had the situation that I uploaded a patch, then we
> debated the qdoc entries, variable names, method names, etc FOR
> MONTHS - and
On Friday, 13 October 2017 05:07:54 PDT Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> > 7. when you have a certain count of +1's from people who have
> > approver rights
> - I'm afraid that as a result of 7 people will not give +1s anymore
> Review as a process is good, it may be annoying but it is proven to increas
Sérgio Martins (13 October 2017 16:05)
> Some users have been complaining about the review process and have
> rotting patches, so I welcome brainstorming around this. Let's see if
> we can conclude improvements!
Indeed - and the remedy for that is, painfully enough, that we, as
developers, need to
On Friday, 13 October 2017 01:30:57 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> This sounds like a decent option to me. I'm don't quite like system() and
> global() as names yet, as they don't really make it clear that one of them
> is deterministic. Other than that this looks like a good way forward.
Well, one of th
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Viktor Engelmann
wrote:
> I am thinking about the scenario when I read a 300 line commit and I am
> unsure about some of the lines. Say it removes one include and adds
> another include.
>
> If that commit comes from someone whom I talk to every day - someone
> who
If you do like that then you are doing it wrong. Review process is _not_ based
on a name / company / sun activity. It is based on the change content. Even
best people do mistakes.
Cheers,
Jędrek
On piątek, 13 października 2017 15:48:51 CEST Viktor Engelmann wrote:
> I am thinking about the s
I am thinking about the scenario when I read a 300 line commit and I am
unsure about some of the lines. Say it removes one include and adds
another include.
If that commit comes from someone whom I talk to every day - someone
whom I know to be very concerned about security and privacy - and
someon
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:13:16 +0200
Viktor Engelmann wrote:
> >> 4. I don't think we need to be as paranoid towards contributions
> >> from > our own employees as we need to be towards external
> >> contributions.
> > Anyone with approver rights should be aware of his powers and use them
>
Thank you for addressing this point, Andy.
I also want to respond to Alex's other comment, "Let the community do the work
and squeeze all customers and force them to use commercial licensing by using
fear..."
First of all, look at the project statistics. The Qt Company is BY FAR the
largest co
On 13.10.2017 14:22, André Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Victor,
>
> just my 2 cent to one part:
>
>> 4. I don't think we need to be as paranoid towards contributions
>> from > our own employees as we need to be towards external
>> contributions.
> Anyone with approver rights should be aware of his pow
Sorry if I insulted somebody, that was not my intend. But the proposal alone
fits too well into numerous things that happened the last months to the public
presentation of Qt and TQC. Starting with the simple task of trying to download
the OSS version of Qt which is the most complicated possible
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Marc Mutz
> On 2017-10-13 14:30, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6?
>
> How about the release team locks the branch
Please, do not jump immediately to a conclusion. It was Viktor's proposal
which does not represent "TQC administration" whatever it is. Qt-project has
own rules and it is self-governmented. Just to be fair, you could also notice
my answer to the proposal:
> I do not agree. An employer name does
To make it clear, it is Viktor’s opinion here and he can state it but it does
not mean that it is the representation of all of The Qt Company here. It was
one point of a larger mail which he took the time to write because he wants to
open a discussion about how we can improve the review process
On 2017-10-13 13:04, Viktor Engelmann wrote:
* I don't think we need to be as paranoid towards contributions from
our own employees as we need to be towards external contributions.
I believe you got that the wrong way around :)
Thanks,
Marc
Viktor Engelmann (13 October 2017 13:04)
> On the [Interest] mailing list there was a discussion about the
> review-process taking to long and we also had multiple discussions
> about that at the world summit. I have complained about this myself,
> so I would like to start a new thread and collect
On 2017-10-13 14:30, Simon Hausmann wrote:
How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6?
How about the release team locks the branch down and cherry-picks bug
fixes from younger branches to 5.6 as it sees fit, and we require a +2
from the module maintainer or the patch's original au
That shows exactly the mindset of the TQC administration. Let the community do
the work and squeeze all customers and force them to use commercial licensing
by using fear...
Beste Grüße / Best regards,
Alexander Nassian
> Am 13.10.2017 um 14:46 schrieb André Somers :
>
>
>
> Op 13/10/2017 o
Op 13/10/2017 om 13:04 schreef Viktor Engelmann:
> 4. I don't think we need to be as paranoid towards contributions from
> our own employees as we need to be towards external contributions.
>
>
So much for open government...
André
___
Development mail
Hi,
I think the goal should be to improve the quality of changes that go into 5.6.
I don't think that we should try to reduce the amount per-se.
How about instead we require two +2 for changes to 5.6?
Other than that: Is there any concrete evidence about changes that did go into
5.6 that sh
Hi Victor,
just my 2 cent to one part:
4. I don't think we need to be as paranoid towards contributions from >
our own employees as we need to be towards external contributions.
Anyone with approver rights should be aware of his powers and use them
carefully, no matter if he is employed
On piątek, 13 października 2017 13:04:46 CEST Viktor Engelmann wrote:
> On the [Interest] mailing list there was a discussion about the
> review-process taking to long and we also had multiple discussions about
> that at the world summit. I have complained about this myself, so I
> would like to st
13.10.2017, 14:05, "Viktor Engelmann" :
> On the [Interest] mailing list there was a discussion about the
> review-process taking to long and we also had multiple discussions about that
> at the world summit. I have complained about this myself, so I would like to
> start a new thread and coll
On the [Interest] mailing list there was a discussion about the
review-process taking to long and we also had multiple discussions about
that at the world summit. I have complained about this myself, so I
would like to start a new thread and collect your thoughts and ideas on
how to improve the sit
> On 12 Oct 2017, at 17:11, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 01:28:34 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
>>> So I created a better option: QPseudoRandomGenerator (name bikeshedding
>>> later)
>> I should note that "pseudo-random" is in fact a variant on "chaotic", so
>>
Hi,
QCA is being developed outside of qt-project, so we can't easily add it to Qt.
Better crypto support would IMO be great to have, but I currently don't think
there's any active work ongoing in this area.
Cheers,
Lars
PS: Just as a side note: Adding better crypto support is something we coul
CI master is up and running. IT began work on WLANs next and after that VPN.
-T
From: Tony Sarajärvi
Sent: perjantai 13. lokakuuta 2017 8.05
To: 'development@qt-project.org'
Subject: IT service break going on right now
Hi
Better late than never they say? We on moving bits and pieces from our o
49 matches
Mail list logo
