Hi Chris,
Am 16.10.2017 um 08:11 schrieb Christian Gagneraud:
From an end user point of view, i think it's a great idea but I think
it conflicts with Qml.
At work we have our own set of highly customised widgets, for embedded
devices, it simply works, no need (yet) for Qml.
I would be intere
On 16/10/2017 7:31 pm, "BogDan Vatra" wrote:
On luni, 16 octombrie 2017 17:38:53 EEST Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 15:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> >> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
> >> You're all wrong."
> >> T
oops - what I wanted to say about code of conduct: this is precisely why
I opposed a code of conduct in the QtCS discussion. A code of conduct
would pretty much lead to a situation where it doesn't matter if a
message is understood correctly - the one who wrote it is to blame by
default.
Some peop
On 13.10.2017 15:33, Christian Kandeler wrote:
>> Sure - but let's think about this in a different context: imagine
>> someone applies at your company. You invite them to a job interview and
>> have one of your engineers do a technical interview with them.
>>
>> Do you afterwards go to the applican
On luni, 16 octombrie 2017 17:38:53 EEST Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 15:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> >> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
> >> You're all wrong."
> >> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't give
Being widget oriented only, any development related to that domain is pleasing
me.
Now, I don't know if I will need your particular library.
Philippe
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:22:59 +0330
iman ahmadvand wrote:
No one interested ?
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:03 AM, iman ahmadvand wrote:
>> Hi
>From an end user point of view, i think it's a great idea but I think it
conflicts with Qml.
At work we have our own set of highly customised widgets, for embedded
devices, it simply works, no need (yet) for Qml.
I would be interested to see your work and give my opinion if it can help.
Full dis
No one interested ?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:03 AM, iman ahmadvand
wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> Before I send some code base on codereview and decide whether my
> implementation meets the requirements, I just want to know your thoughts
> about design decision for the new module I’m trying to ad
On 16 October 2017 at 15:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
>> You're all wrong."
>> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
>> comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing.
>
> It make
Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
> You're all wrong."
> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
> comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing.
It makes one important point (and elaborates it to great lengths):
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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
> the previous symbols would just disappear and new o
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 02:20:13 PDT Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> How many people had the same reaction when clang started?
> Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling
> like we would never have dared to dream of .
Clang may be far superior to GCC in a lot of aspects.
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 03:23:57 PDT Jake Petroules wrote:
> We've already decided internally that we want to push Qbs as the new build
> tool, and I have no doubt that the community will agree.
I have no doubt the community agrees that you have the right to try.
Whether the community agrees o
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Ben Lau wrote:
>
>
> On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov wrote:
> Hi all, my 5-cents:
>
> QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. :)
>
>
> I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I
>
On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov
wrote:
> Hi all, my 5-cents:
>
> QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated.
> :)
>
>
I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I
think it has missed a critical feature - A simple way to run cu
On 15 October 2017 at 23:23, Jake Petroules wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>>
>> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
>> wrote:
nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/+Aar
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>
> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
> wrote:
>>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8
>
> I would resume this post as
On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
wrote:
>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
>
> https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8
I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
You're all wrong."
This post doesn't ex
18 matches
Mail list logo
