On 13/03/20 03:32, Chris Adams wrote:
> Regarding maintainership: yes, for QtPIM at least it would be very
> beneficial if someone from UBPorts could commit significant time to
> QtPIM, as there are some open items there currently and unfortunately I
> don't have much capacity to spend on QtPIM at
Hi Everyone,
Pretty much same reviews still ongoing, see
-
https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/message:%2522API+comparison+from+v5.14.0+to+5.15%2522+status:open
-
https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/topic:%2522plugins.qmltypes+update+for+5.15%2522
Please try to finalize these during this week
Hi Mike,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 5:47 AM Mike Gabriel <
mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> thanks for following up on my questions.
>
> On Fr 13 Mär 2020 01:32:24 CET, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I don't know much / anything about QtSystems,
>
> Ok...
>
> > pe
On Sunday, 15 March 2020 02:30:21 EST Richard Weickelt wrote:
> > That's why I asked last month (and still have no official reply) on how
> > the Qt Company suggests we use Qt in public CIs, if the binary build is
> > locked to Qt Accounts.
>
> Do you seriously expect to get a reply?
Yes.
--
Th
> AppVeyor supports Linux, but they support Dot Net on Linux, which isn't
> interesting. Travis does not support Windows (or didn't, last I checked).
> That means I need both to have the two to support three OSes.
Travis supports Windows. The machines are not fast, but it is usually enough.
>
>
