On Friday 05 October 2012 14:41:10 Rafael Roquetto wrote:
> Hi Tuukka,
>
> Is this listed anywhere, or are you planning to publish this once it is in
> place? Is this the same thing Rich is referring to?
>
> Btw, thanks for the 4.8.4, much appreciated.
>
> Kind regards,
> Rafael
I assume he mea
On Thursday 30 August 2012 11:48:38 BRM wrote:
> tar.bz2 is pretty common, along with tar.gz.
> tar.xy, OTOH, is quite rare.
>
> Googling tar.bz2 yields good results what to do with such a file.
> Googling tar.xy yields nothing useful about what compression engine is used
> even used; Googling "co
On Monday 14 May 2012 09:11:20 Carl Schumann wrote:
> Qt developer community,
>
> I am a first timer at this process, but have now managed to get a change
> approved:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/26041
> According to http://wiki.qt-project.org/Qt_Contribution_Guidelines I
> should now submi
Bom, a exemplo, e pedido, do Antognolli estou compartilhando minha proposta de
palestra. Naturalmente sugestões são muito bem vindas.
Author: "Jonas M. Gastal"
Team leader at ProFUSION Embedded Systems
Title:
There's an ~~app~~example for that
Short bio:
Gastal has been a pro
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 22:22:34 liang jian wrote:
> Hi, everyone,
> Recently I pushed two changes to Qt project for Qt5, I want them
> also be pushed to Qt4.8, so I change the code in my qt4 repository
> (cloned from gitorious.org), and try to commit it, To my surprise, the
> commit
On Friday 10 February 2012 19:25:04 shane.kea...@accenture.com wrote:
> The same change would be required at the QNetworkAccessManager level, as
> there is no point applying flow control at the socket and having unbounded
> memory allocations in the QNetworkReply.
I think it might make sense to im
On Sunday 05 February 2012 14:12:48 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> These items are still open and we'll need feedback on them:
> * network authentication and SLL errors without stalling QNAM
> (QTBUG-16251, QTBUG-19032)
Peter did some of the work on this: http://codereview.qt-project.org/13834
I do
On Friday 27 January 2012 09:42:19 Charley Bay wrote:
> > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL
> >
> >
> > Embedded?
>
> +1
>
> Further, half of C++ developers *hate* STL. (Long story, off-topic for
> here.)
>
> --charley
So? It's not like we are telling them to use, just having
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 18:11:08 marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 11:14, ext Quim Gil wrote:
> > - When? There have been different opinions and the trend seems to be
> > that it is better to do it after Qt 5 is released, otherwise people will
> > be too stuck with bugfixing an
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 12:33:36 Peter Hartmann wrote:
> I also like first making the parts still in use private; getting rid of
> it completely is a bigger task, as it requires rewriting parts of the
> HTTP socket engine and QAuthenticator IIRC.
>
> Peter
>
> _
On Friday 30 December 2011 13:40:09 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> 2011/12/30 Stephen Kelly :
> > This is due for release in mid-January, so Qt 5.0 could depend on the 16
> > bit API already.
>
> I'd like to bring the discussion we had on IRC yesterday on the
> mailing list. What are the people's opin
On Friday 23 December 2011 11:06:53 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 23 de December de 2011 10.41.43, Jonas M. Gastal wrote:
> > QNAM is not meant to be used in creating a server, it is strictly for
> > clients.
> >
> > >From what I know there are no class
On Friday 23 December 2011 12:23:14 Alex Kides wrote:
> Is there an equivalent means of processing http requests/responses when
> working with a QTcpServer/QTcpSocket? (The QHttp*Header classes have been
> marked as obsolete but no usable equivalent is in place, that i've seen
> anyway, the QNAM cl
Hey all,
I have just sent to gerrit a patch which removes QHttp from Qt:
http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,11741
However I have not removed QHttpHeader and friends, so they're still public
and in the QHttp header, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to make that
stuff private. That A
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 08:59:25 Dave Mateer wrote:
> I have several patches to Qt4 that I have posted on the bug tracker. Now
> that the new contribution model is in place, I wanted to submit those as
> patches. I'm not very familiar with git (we use SVN), and am having trouble
> at the follow
On Friday 16 December 2011 08:40:24 morten.sor...@nokia.com wrote:
> I think staggering of feature integrations is a very good idea in general.
> Qt 5.0 is a special case since we are looking at features that cannot be
> done for 5.1 due to BC reasons.
>
> Changing the topic slightly, what if we r
16 matches
Mail list logo
