On 1/6/2021 6:10 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
Hi Max and Adam,
What can do better to avoid such regressions from making it into a release, or
preferably into the code, in the first place? Nobody, not even the Qt Company
management :P *wants* to release crappy quality on time.
What we know abo
On 1/5/2021 1:02 PM, Adam Light wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:56 AM Volker Hilsheimer
mailto:volker.hilshei...@qt.io>> wrote:
Apart from that: is Qt 5.15.2 really so broken that people can’t use
it without getting more patches?
I can't speak to 5.15 as we decided not to upgrade s
I would restate my objection by pointing out again [1] that Win 7 is
still the 2nd most popular desktop OS in the world, with 3x more users
than all MacOS versions combined. Never mind Linux, which is on par
with Win XP users (the previous "known good" Windows version prior to 7).
Any softwar
Just wanted to chime in as a "could be" Qt dev. Lowering the barrier to
entry by allowing use of familiar tools could be a benefit IF you're
looking for more contributions. I'm sure there's effort involved to
allow this, and maybe it's not practical in the end, but perhaps worth
considering/loo
On 2/28/2020 2:37 PM, Max Paperno wrote:
I humbly suggest, in general, that a signal name could be prefixed with
"sig", "sig_", "signal" or "signal_". "sigEmptied()" doesn't look
horrible IMHO, and should work semantically with any ve
I humbly suggest, in general, that a signal name could be prefixed with
"sig", "sig_", "signal" or "signal_". "sigEmptied()" doesn't look
horrible IMHO, and should work semantically with any verb. Using
prefixes to signify meaning already has some precedence in C/C++ world
as well. And lastl
