On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:41 AM, wrote:
> I've been working on a patch to the Qt logging framework:
> http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,13433,patchset=14 . Basically it
> redefines qDebug() and friends as a macro so that we can automatically
> capture the source file, line, and functi
>> Could someone please explain what the above statement means and perhaps just
>> include the git command I need to run to fulfill the requirement?
>
> To add remotes, you want something like:
> git remote add nameofremote gitrepourl
> for instance,
> git remote add github_backup g...@github.com
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> I've spoken about this to Tuukka in a couple of occasions. It's my
> understanding that getting the Digia engineers become approvers and eventually
> maintainers for the parts they work mostly on is their intention too.
Right.
> However,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robin Burchell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> Wouldn't it make sense to have some people from digia as maintainers
>> or approvers?
>
> If they earn the position through work and trustworthine
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Turunen Tuukka
wrote:
> Qt 4.8.0 and Qt Commercial 4.8.0 have been released today. I wanted to send
> you e-mail about the delta between these.
>
> We have worked hard with 4.8 to improve it for desktop and embedded
> platforms according to the needs of commercia
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, chenyawei wrote:
> How can I join the maillist?
You can register yourself at
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/ma
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:58:10 +0100, wrote:
> Exactly! And that's why I wanted to use the status for something useful
> for contributors, so they can quickly see who is what, and where to seek
> for help depending on what they need. Of course, each maintainer will
> have his/her own area of expert
Hi,
Just adding some more fuel to the fire.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>> I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing
>> is not that bad as a build system[1]. It permi
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'd also like to work on enabling -Werror, but usually deprecation warnings
> cannot be avoided, so I'll add also a Wno-error-deprecated.
Sounds reasonable.
___
Development mailing list
Developm
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> One more thing: QT_DEPRECATED expands to empty during the Qt build.
>
> Should we enable QT_DEPRECATED_WARNINGS?
FWIW, my personal experience is that build warnings are noticed before
documentation changes. I always feel a deprecation war
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Burchell wrote:
>> QtCore code can't be LGPL? Please elaborate.
>
> Meaning, it must be dual-GPL/LGPL licensed, plus the Nokia license exception.
Ah, LGPL only.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.o
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> - KConfig code reuse possible?
> No: QtCore code can't be LGPL, and too many authors for relicensing!
QtCore code can't be LGPL? Please elaborate.
Cheers,
Frans
___
Development mailing list
De
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Schimkowitsch Robert
wrote:
> I see there's no Qt5-Feedback list up and running, so I'll post here in the
> meantime.
AFAIK all qt5 feedback can go onto the development mailing list now.
It's probably best to continue the discussion there.
Cheers,
Frans
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Andre Somers wrote:
> Note that the verification flag would be optional anyway. If you return
> false if ok is false, then you can easily choose if you need
> verification or not. It just needs to be clearly documented.
As always.
> However, if
> you think that
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Andre Somers wrote:
> IMHO, there is a big difference between a string that correctly converts
> to false, and one that can not be converted to a boolean. Do you really
> wish to make that difference invisible?
Certainly not.
> I agree with Jan Arve on this topi
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I agree with your argument, I just don't think it's applicable. QString is not
> localised and has never promised to be. QString::number generates C-locale
> numbers and toInt/toDouble parse C-locale; QDate::toString generates C-locale
> d
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, wrote:
> Consider this code:
>
> bool parseOk;
> if (str.toBool(&parseOk)) {
> if (parseOk)
> enableSuperFastRenderer();
> }
I think that in most, if not all cases, the parseOk argument would or
even should be omitted (just like with QVariant):
if (st
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:01:43 +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> QVariant has toBool just like it has toDouble and toInt, so I think it
> makes sense to have it in QString and in QByteArray.
It makes sense from an equal-API point of view. On the other hand,
QVariant has a significantly diff
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:19:29 +0200, Antonis Tsiapaliokas
wrote:
> Also, please read the comment from the John Brooks, which i think that
> he isright. So what do you think?
I would say he is right. He strongly hints at the possibility that bool is
too context dependent. And I agree wi
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:38:25 +0200, Chris Meyer
wrote:
> Why does QFactoryLoader and QLibrary cache information in QSettings?
>
> Does this cache information need to be available between application
> launches?
>
> Is there a performance reason?
As I always understood (from the docs), the pl
20 matches
Mail list logo
