Along with most of the Brisbane Trolls, I'll be leaving Nokia tomorrow. I'll
be on vacation for the next two months, but I will check my gerrit dashboard
every few days and try to keep up with reviews.
I intend to keep my Maintainer status while I still feel that I can commit
enough time to do
There's a mac package now at
http://releases.qt-project.org/digia/2012-07-17/qt-mac-opensource-5.0.0-beta1-offline.dmg
Perhaps building the mac package takes a bit longer than the others.
--
Jason
From: development-bounces+jason.mcdonald=nokia..
Hi Rafael,
> I believe this was briefly discussed on IRC, but just to recapitulate, is it
> possible to have JIRA bugs assigned automatically to non-approvers?
The automatic assignment of new tasks is based on component ownership.
Anyone who is assignable can be the owner of a component, and the
> I would like to nomimate Miikka Heikkinen from Digia for Approver status.
>
> He has been working on Qt 5 on Windows for a quite a while and has fixed
> numerous issues and failing test cases in the areas QWidget/QWindow,
> fonts, Vista style and QML and is currently working on the daunting task
> I started a wiki page with a list of stuff to do with regards to Qt
> releases. It is based on our workflows from before and quite an efficient
> procedure.
>
> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Release-procedure
>
> Please take a look and improve it as you see fit.
Do we need to co-ordinate with the C
> I would like to work on a Mock add-on module in Qt Playground that
> might be beneficial later for certain projects. See the relevant
> wikipage for a short introduction about the goals of mock objects in
> testing:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object
>
> There were previous attempts to ad
>>2) make it possible to add any user to the watcher list
>> The only way today of requesting information from someone else is to assign
>> the task. That means I can't ask for information from two people.
>
>You already can add other people to the watcher list (or at least I can, but
>maybe it re
>1) automatically add every commenter to the Watch list, upon making a comment
> Many people used to Bugzilla don't realise that they will not receive answers
> back unless they add themselves to the Watchers list. This means we never get
> replies that we need.
I have experienced the same frustra
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Girish Ramakrishnan
> wrote:
> > 1. qtestlib ends up exposing qpa api and thus testcases might end up
> > being binary incompatible - This should be fixed in
>
> AFAIK qtestlib doesn't promise binary compatibility (see e.g.
> http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtqa/comm
> Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how
> often those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to
> figure out which ones are actually working, and therefore should not
> be marked as insignificant.
I'm glad you asked. I spent some time yesterday and today d
>Another way tests have been disabled is using CONFIG += no_check_target which
>seems to have been done when tests were initially disabled before the
>insignificant_test option was added.
Actually, I think that came a little later (when the refactor branch was merged
into master). That mechani
> I've grepped through all the modules to create a list of these insignificant
> tests, and listed them below. Please note that a test marked as insignificant
> in essence provides us with zero coverage, since all results from those test
> cases (although run) are completely ignored.
> IMO, if
> To help with this I would like to nominate Casper Vandonderen as the
> maintainer for our documentation. I've already talked to him and he's
> interested and willing to take the job. This doesn't mean he is
> responsible for writing or reviewing all the documentation we have, but
> his role would
> As this is a regression from 4.8 I assume it must be fixed for 5.0, rather
> than just hacking the test to make it pass? I also assume I need to open a
> separate bug report for it?
As much as possible we would like to fix any regressions that we find in 5.0
compared to 4.8, so that migration
On hursday, March 15, 2012 3:02 PM, Rohan Mcgovern said:
>jason.mcdon...@nokia.com said:
>> All,
>>
>> I'd like to nominate Kurt Korbatits for approver status. Kurt worked on
>> Qtopia, Qt and Qt Mobility from 2005 to 2010 and rejoined Nokia's Brisbane
>> team in late 2011. Since then he has be
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 Christoph Feck wrote:
> Instead of rushing half-baked APIs, the 5.0 release should be a solid
> base from which new and well designed APIs can be launched. The less
> APIs are included into 5.0, the lower the frustation will be when it
> is later discovered that they are il
By now, I'm sure you've all seen various announcements about the Qt 5 Alpha
Release and you've hopefully also read Lars' blog on Qt Labs. The main purpose
of the Alpha is to show users where Qt 5 is headed and to get feedback on the
various new features and API's, and some useful feedback that
> I remember some days ago it still works fine.
> But it don't work for me. :(
Hi Loaden,
I'm not able to produce this failure using qt5.git. Please provide more
information (e.g. which platform, which repo/sha1's), preferably by raising an
issue in https://bugreports.qt-project.org/.
Cheers
All,
I'd like to nominate Kurt Korbatits for approver status. Kurt worked on
Qtopia, Qt and Qt Mobility from 2005 to 2010 and rejoined Nokia's Brisbane team
in late 2011. Since then he has been working on improving the state of Qt's
autotests with a particular focus on getting the tests worki
> Shane Kearns has however stepped up and is willing to take over the
> position. I'm really happy that Shane is willing to take this job. He has
> a lot of experience with QtNetwork, and has been heavily involved with Qt
> development (actively working on the Symbian port) for quite a few years.
>
Thiago Macieira [thiago.macie...@intel.com] wrote:
> I'd like to nominate Robin Burchell (a.k.a. w00t on IRC) for approver in Qt.
> He's been around Qt for some time now and has been contributing both in his
> work time and in his personal time. He was also my main external "sparring
> partner" wh
Having been release manager for several past Qt feature releases (4.5 to 4.7),
I'm wary of setting a single feature freeze date and having a big rush to cram
all the new features into the master branch in the last couple of days before
the deadline. Instead, I would like to see a staggered deli
22 matches
Mail list logo
