On fredag 15. februar 2019 12:21:43 CET Martin Koller wrote:
> On Freitag, 15. Februar 2019 11:08:18 CET Andy Shaw wrote:
> > Since it has the +2 you can click on the "Merge patch 2 to staging" now,
> > is that button showing up for you?
> ah, great. Was not aware that I needed to trigger that.
> M
On Freitag, 15. Februar 2019 11:08:18 CET Andy Shaw wrote:
> Since it has the +2 you can click on the "Merge patch 2 to staging" now, is
> that button showing up for you?
ah, great. Was not aware that I needed to trigger that.
My fault. Was thinking the maintainer does that.
Thanks!
> Andy
>
>
Since it has the +2 you can click on the "Merge patch 2 to staging" now, is
that button showing up for you?
Andy
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Development på vegne av Martin Koller
Dato: fredag 15. februar 2019 11:04
Til: "development@qt-project.org"
Emne: [Development] codereview, mer
Hi,
I made a patch here
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/249171/
but it's still not merged.
Did I forget something ?
--
Best regards/Schöne Grüße
Martin
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q: Why is top posting bad?
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
Hi,
On fredag 15. februar 2019 07:31:33 CET Lars Knoll wrote:
> Summing up the discussion here. It looks like people overall agree that the
> pinned dependency approach (option 3) sounds better than what we currently
> have. The main concern was CI capacity, but Frederik believes that with
> enoug
Lars Knoll (15 February 2019 09:03) wrote
> * Don’t remove any functions from wip/qt6 unless they are marked as
> deprecated in dev or else you have discussed it on the mailing list
> and gotten maintainer approval for the removal
To avoid conflicts on merging, when deprecating in dev and remo
Hi everybody,
After a lot of work and discussions, I believe we have now reached consensus on
a Code of Conduct for the Qt project. You can find the latest version on code
review at https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/243623/.
I do now consider this version as approved (it already has lots o
Lots of good discussions around the proposal from Jedrzej. It seems like this
has been inconclusive for the moment. Both cherry-picking and the current model
have it’s advantages and disadvantages. One major concern was that we’d
overload especially qtbase/dev integrations and this would lead to
Let’s also conclude this thread. Majority consensus was that we need a branch
and most votes went towards wip/qt6. So let’s use that for Qt 6 related work
and create the required branch.
The following rules apply:
* We CI test the branch on (at least) a reduced set of platforms/compilers.
Mini
