On segunda-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2013 18.22.26, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-01-28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > I'd rather skip that step and simply go to -Werror. Lars proposed that we
> > experiment with it a little and see how far it goes before turning it on.
> >
> > The good thing about -W
On 2013-01-28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'd rather skip that step and simply go to -Werror. Lars proposed that we
> experiment with it a little and see how far it goes before turning it on.
>
> The good thing about -Werror is that the failure comes fast.
The bad thing about -Werror is that it tr
On segunda-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2013 17.03.39, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2013, at 5:39 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2013-01-28, Knoll Lars wrote:
> 1) always with -developer-build
> 2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disables it
> 3) completely optional, C
On 28 Jan 2013, at 5:39 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-01-28, Knoll Lars wrote:
1) always with -developer-build
2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disables it
3) completely optional, CI enables it
4) completely optional, not enabled by the CI
>
>> I'd favor
On 2013-01-28, Knoll Lars wrote:
>>> 1) always with -developer-build
>>> 2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disables it
>>> 3) completely optional, CI enables it
>>> 4) completely optional, not enabled by the CI
> I'd favor (2) for now, and move over to (1) once we gained a little
On segunda-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2013 16.06.25, Knoll Lars wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
> > On 28 January 2013 09:57, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> >> Options are:
> >>
> >> 1) always with -developer-build
> >> 2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disa
On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
> On 28 January 2013 09:57, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Options are:
>>
>> 1) always with -developer-build
>> 2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disables it
>> 3) completely optional, CI enables it
>> 4) completely optional, not
On segunda-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2013 10.01.06, Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
> I would vote for 1), but it can cause problems in bigger releases
> (remember amount of warnings before Qt5 alpha?).
Releases aren't built with -developer-build.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Softw
On 28 January 2013 09:57, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Options are:
>
> 1) always with -developer-build
> 2) on by default on -developer-build, but the CI disables it
> 3) completely optional, CI enables it
> 4) completely optional, not enabled by the CI
>
> I favour options 1 or 2.
I would vote for
On terça-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2013 23.26.07, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 1) Qt library modules are compiled with -Werror (optional, via whitelist)
> 2) Direct compilation of all headers (mandatory)
> Both features are enabled only if -developer-build is passed.
I'm going to assume implied consen
I've just pushed a set of patches for review that implement a more direct way
of ensuring our codebase is cleaner (patches 45529 to 45533). You may have
noticed, if I added you to one of my reviews in the past months, that I sent
lots of fixes for warnings.
If you paid attention to them, you ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
