On Sunday, 28 October 2018 17:20:04 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
> the
> > charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
> are
> > fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way.
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 16:53:01 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
>
> wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> > times
> > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time
> > it to
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 14:57:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> Note: I continue to think that KDE's CoC's text is written better and more
> clearly.
me too.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Thank you, Lydia and everyone!
I hope I'm not upsetting anyone. I could accept I'm taking too much
attention to the subject.
Qt project is very valuable for me as a user and a developer.
пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 2:53, Lydia Pintscher :
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>
> Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
the
> charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
are
> fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if
the
> accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who c
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times
> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time it
> took them to give it the attention it was due.
I don't have an exact number but l
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:27 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> > Well, I'm not as sure as you, but I am hopeful.
>
> Then trust me. I know a lot of people in those two companies, I am from
> the
> same background as most of them (KDE community) and I have worked for
> Trolltech, whose values and ethic
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 13:18:02 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> > That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
>
> It is not clear. Intruder could ask to ban some person pretending it's
> discrimina
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 14:04:11 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure their company HR would want to have a chat anyway.
>
> Well, I'm not as sure as you, but I am hopeful.
Then trust me. I know a lot of people in those two companies, I am from the
same background as most of the
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:51 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure their company HR would want to have a chat anyway.
>
Well, I'm not as sure as you, but I am hopeful.
> That's also a good reason to choose the KDE CoC, as both TQtC and KDAB
> recruit
> heavily from the KDE community and
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 2:08 PM Martin Smith wrote:
> No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint is no resolution.
Given the (current) structure of the community I take that as the offence
not carrying merit.
But even if "the community" does react to the alleged offense, how is tha
> So, as far as I see you have not identified any controversial
> sentences either
I've defined controversial sentences previously about proposed
harassment-free pledge part and KDE's protection from discrimination part.
> see people reporting on successes of KDE CoC and
> problems with kernel one
On Saturday, 27 October 2018 13:40:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
> > community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
> > affect your employment.
>
> I agree. However my argument was that the
> > вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :
> > Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
> > controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
> > discussed?
> >
> > > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
> > >
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 11:49:08 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote:
> It is a bit ironic that one reason given to deprecate Q_FOREACH is that it
> may copy the container in some cases, while the alternative has the same
> problem in much more common cases. (It is my impression that implicitly
> shared c
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 08:36:17 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
> expect to be unstoppable abusive behaviour.
>
> Most abusive behaviour on the mailing lists and IRC can be
> stopped by technical means, in exceptional cases like the rec
On 10/27/18 5:27 PM, Sérgio Martins wrote:
Den lör 27 okt. 2018 kl 13:37 skrev Olivier Goffart :
Jokes aside, I think we still should let users use Q_FOREACH for implicitly
shared containers.
But what's the percentage of Qt developers that understand the
subtleties between Q_FOREACH and range-
Il 28/10/18 15:42, Kevin Kofler ha scritto:
As long as it is not actually removed, it is not too late to undo this
totally incorrect decision.
See also:https://valdyas.org/fading/hacking/happy-porting/
(Technically, it could be readded even after it is removed, but it would be
much easier to un
Hello all,
I am currently working on improving Qt's CMake support, and I've written
some rather complicated logic that I want to test thoroughly -
specifically, I want to make sure that an exact list of plugins that I've
requested has been statically loaded, no more, and no less. The easiest way
t
I agree my example is extremely contrived right now,
I just tried to show the idea.
Thank you, Elvis, for your answers.
> getting your patches rejected is not harassment
I agree that getting some patches rejected without any additional info is
not a harassment by default
I'm saying something lik
Sérgio Martins wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 1:53 PM Elvis Stansvik wrote:
>> Yes, I thought that Q_FOREACH was slated for deprecation though. But
>> maybe that's not set in stone yet?
>
> It is, see Qt's documentation:
> "Since Qt 5.7, the use of this macro is discouraged. It will be
> remove
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:34:40AM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> And because we are online and spread all around the world, there is
> currently no way for us to stop and prevent abusive behavior.
That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
expect to be unstoppable abusive behav
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 14:29 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> > [...] or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> > want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
>
> I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
> but to show both have same problems.
>
> For me i
> [...] or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
but to show both have same problems.
For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow
provi
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 13:32 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
:
>
> Il 28/10/18 11:22, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > Though hmm, even if we'd lose move-construction, for the copy we'd get
> > instead, wouldn't copy elision kick in and elide it? So we wouldn't
> > have to pay for the ref co
Il 27/10/18 17:27, Sérgio Martins ha scritto:
It is, see Qt's documentation:
"Since Qt 5.7, the use of this macro is discouraged. It will be
removed in a future version of Qt"
... we need to start adding actual deprecation macros, or people will
never notice.
https://codereview.qt-project.o
Il 28/10/18 11:22, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
Though hmm, even if we'd lose move-construction, for the copy we'd get
instead, wouldn't copy elision kick in and elide it? So we wouldn't
have to pay for the ref count up/down?
GCE is one thing, and applies in a very specific case (returning a
prv
>In any case, the current status quo, which is what I described, ends in either
>the
>community reacting or not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the
>offensive party for example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad.
No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> Hello, Tomasz! :)
> Thank you for the question!
>
> Current draft based on CoC:
>
> > Our Pledge
> > ==
> > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project p
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:22 skrev Elvis Stansvik :
>
> Den lör 27 okt. 2018 kl 22:23 skrev Thiago Macieira
> :
> >
> > On Saturday, 27 October 2018 08:33:30 PDT Sérgio Martins wrote:
> > > Should we instead just encourage people to make returnsQtContainer()
> > > return a const container ?
> >
>
I agree with you, Konstantin
вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 13:36, Konstantin Shegunov :
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith wrote:
>
>> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
>> offended party
>> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>>
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith wrote:
> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
> offended party
> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>
> HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately
> see that your 3
Hello, Tomasz! :)
Thank you for the question!
Current draft based on CoC:
> Our Pledge
> ==
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> participation in our project and our community a harassm
Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:22 skrev Elvis Stansvik :
>
> Den lör 27 okt. 2018 kl 22:23 skrev Thiago Macieira
> :
> >
> > On Saturday, 27 October 2018 08:33:30 PDT Sérgio Martins wrote:
> > > Should we instead just encourage people to make returnsQtContainer()
> > > return a const container ?
> >
>
Den lör 27 okt. 2018 kl 22:23 skrev Thiago Macieira :
>
> On Saturday, 27 October 2018 08:33:30 PDT Sérgio Martins wrote:
> > Should we instead just encourage people to make returnsQtContainer()
> > return a const container ?
>
> We should not, since the prevents move-construction from happening. Y
>Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended
>party
>may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately see
that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter!
>imagine t
>I am not aware of a single country without laws.
>Over here e.g. "insult" is an offense.
First, most of us aren't in Germany and don't have the German legal system to
protect us. But more to the point, A CoC need not be adequate to deal with
actual crimes nor even violations of civil law, becau
> The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
> carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as
> rewrite.
Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
d
38 matches
Mail list logo
