Hi,
On 05/28/2012 12:47 AM, ext Rohan McGovern wrote:
> Turunen Tuukka said:
>>
>> If feasible, I would like to see both Mac OS X 10.8 and Windows 8 (to the
>> extent it is know at that time) working in the 4.8.3 release, as well as
>> Ubuntu 12.04.
>>
>> In addition to making the obvious fixes it
Turunen Tuukka said:
> >>
> >> If feasible, I would like to see both Mac OS X 10.8 and Windows 8 (to
> >>the
> >> extent it is know at that time) working in the 4.8.3 release, as well as
> >> Ubuntu 12.04.
> >>
> >> In addition to making the obvious fixes it would be important to do
> >> regular
On 28.5.2012 1.47, "Rohan McGovern" wrote:
>Turunen Tuukka said:
>>
>> On 24.5.2012 15.32, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>>
>> >On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 12.13.31, Yan Shapochnik wrote:
>> >> Since you are back porting this change to 4.8, I would also like to
>> >>make a
>> >> suggestion
Turunen Tuukka said:
>
> On 24.5.2012 15.32, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>
> >On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 12.13.31, Yan Shapochnik wrote:
> >> Since you are back porting this change to 4.8, I would also like to
> >>make a
> >> suggestion and include Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion support in th
On May 24, 2012, at 3:22 PM, ext Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
> On 24.5.2012 15.32, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>
>> On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 12.13.31, Yan Shapochnik wrote:
>>> Since you are back porting this change to 4.8, I would also like to
>>> make a
>>> suggestion and include Mac OS X
On 24.5.2012 15.32, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 12.13.31, Yan Shapochnik wrote:
>> Since you are back porting this change to 4.8, I would also like to
>>make a
>> suggestion and include Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion support in the same
>> manner.
>
>Yes, makes sen
On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 12.13.31, Yan Shapochnik wrote:
> Since you are back porting this change to 4.8, I would also like to make a
> suggestion and include Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion support in the same
> manner.
Yes, makes sense.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
-bounces+shapochniky=seapine@qt-project.org] On Behalf
Of lars.kn...@nokia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:02 AM
To: thiago.macie...@intel.com; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Binary incompatible changes to Qt 4.8
On 5/24/12 10:25 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
w
On 5/24/12 10:25 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 08.17.03, frederik.gladh...@nokia.com
>wrote:
>> The problem I am seeing is that Qt prints for every Qt application this:
>> Qt: Untested Windows version 6.2 detected!
>
>Oh, that's sure going to get some peopl
On quinta-feira, 24 de maio de 2012 08.17.03, frederik.gladh...@nokia.com
wrote:
> The problem I am seeing is that Qt prints for every Qt application this:
> Qt: Untested Windows version 6.2 detected!
Oh, that's sure going to get some people scratching their heads, "but I have
Windows 8!" :-)
The
Hello,
On 23. mai 2012, at 20.12, ext Andreas Holzammer wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is
already done for Qt5 in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,22940
With this change a symbol is added and therefore binary compatibility is
broken. I know i
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> I also prefer not adding backward source incompatible changes to Qt 4.8. Is
> there any precedent for doing it though? Do we know for sure whether it is
> binary incompatible or not to add an enum value?
AFAIK It's binary compatible, unless
On 24.05.2012 00:41, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>
>> On 23 May 2012 20:03, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andreas, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Holzammer
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi, I wanted to backport the support for Wind
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 20:03, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Holzammer
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is
>>> already done for
On 23 May 2012 20:03, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Holzammer
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is
>> already done for Qt5 in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,22940
>> With this c
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Holzammer
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is
> already done for Qt5 in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,22940
> With this change a symbol is added and therefore binary compatibility is
Hi,
I wanted to backport the support for Windows 8 to Qt 4.8, which is
already done for Qt5 in https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,22940
With this change a symbol is added and therefore binary compatibility is
broken. I know i cannot do that for Qt 4.8, so my question if we should
do this an
17 matches
Mail list logo
