On Monday 18 January 2016 15:48:54 Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> Everything I have written about API applies to documentation as well. It
> seems like whatever the implementor writes is accepted and that is that.
> AFAIU that was not exactly how it used to be done at Trolltech when it
> was still ca
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:41:38PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> > Gerrit is somehow much more detail-oriented, and criticizing "too
> > subjective" stuff is frowned upon.
> >
> anyone who complains about such aspects of a re
On Montag, 18. Januar 2016 17:41:38 CET Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> > Gerrit is somehow much more detail-oriented, and criticizing "too
> > subjective" stuff is frowned upon.
>
> anyone who complains about such aspects of a review
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> Gerrit is somehow much more detail-oriented, and criticizing "too
> subjective" stuff is frowned upon.
>
anyone who complains about such aspects of a review clearly didn't quite
get https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Contribution_Guidelines -
I don't really understand the question you're asking. :D
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
> Andreas Hartmetz
> Sent: Monday, 18 January 2016 3:49 PM
> To: qt-dev
> Subject: [Development] API rev
Hello,
Due to a recent problem I had with an API addition (solved while writing
the E-Mail about it, the rubber duck technique worked!) I noticed, not
for the first time, something missing...
the Trolltech API review process.
The thing that ensured that (almost) all new API made sense to humans
