On 23 June 2014 18:21, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> As for Replicant, yes we will need have a playground established for that.
>
> According to
> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Creating-a-new-module-or-tool-for-Qt, I need
> approval from a Qt Maintainer before I can submit a new Gerrit project.
Volker Krause wrote:
> Based on the suggestions we got at QtCS we would like to try to get QQSM
> directly into qtdeclarative.
Yes, that was the consensus at QtCS, which sounds perfect to me. BTW, since
QQSM (Qt QML State Machine) is kind of icky to say, I've started warming to DSM
(for Decla
t;
> mailto:bstot...@ford.com>>,
> "development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>"
> mailto:development@qt-project.org>> Subject:
> Re: [Development] Request for sandbox area: QQSM
>
>
> Hi Brett,
>
> Thank you for the initiativ
mailto:bstot...@ford.com>>,
"development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>"
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: Re: [Development] Request for sandbox area: QQSM
Hi Brett,
Thank you for the initiative. I also think there is indeed a lot of unleashed
On 02/06/14 21:18, "Oswald Buddenhagen"
wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:38:23PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
>> I originally proposed a QtCS session for this, but I think instead I
>> will try to talk to the QML maintainers outside of a session. If any
>> said maintainers think it
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:38:23PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> I originally proposed a QtCS session for this, but I think instead I
> will try to talk to the QML maintainers outside of a session. If any
> said maintainers think it is worth a full session, please let me know.
>
there
Oswald wrote:
> this sounds wrong to me. why would you need a "sandbox", i.e., something
> isolated,
> when it's pretty clear that this is one of the key missing features of
> qml/quick? you
> should aim at bringing this into the qtdeclarative repository, possibly
> directly into one
> of the
Em seg 02 jun 2014, às 16:06:24, Samuel Gaist escreveu:
> On 2 juin 2014, at 16:01, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em seg 02 jun 2014, às 11:23:16, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> >> this sounds wrong to me. why would you need a "sandbox", i.e., something
> >> isolated, when it's pretty clear that this
On 2 juin 2014, at 16:01, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em seg 02 jun 2014, às 11:23:16, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
>> this sounds wrong to me. why would you need a "sandbox", i.e., something
>> isolated, when it's pretty clear that this is one of the key missing
>> features of qml/quick? you shoul
Em seg 02 jun 2014, às 11:23:16, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> this sounds wrong to me. why would you need a "sandbox", i.e., something
> isolated, when it's pretty clear that this is one of the key missing
> features of qml/quick? you should aim at bringing this into the
> qtdeclarative repositor
On Monday, 2 June 2014 11:23:16 CEST, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> I'd like to officially request a sandbox for: Replicant
>>
> sounds ok to me, though i wonder whether naming the technology as a
> whole "replicant" is such a good idea, given the strong connotation with
> android. maybe something
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:14:34PM +, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> I'd like to officially request a sandbox for: QQSM
>
this sounds wrong to me. why would you need a "sandbox", i.e., something
isolated, when it's pretty clear that this is one of the key missing
features of qml/quick? you
lto:bstot...@ford.com>>
Date: Saturday 31 May 2014 01:14
To: "development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>"
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Request for sandbox area: QQSM
Hi list,
My name is Brett Stottlemyer. I work
> Welcome to the community.
Thanks!
> I just have a question: does QQSM build on top of the QStateMachine
> framework, or does it replace completely?
> If the latter, is there any plan to integrate them again?
Hi Thiago. Sorry I wasn't clear. This uses the QStateMachine framework
directly.
Em sex 30 maio 2014, às 22:14:34, Stottlemyer, Brett escreveu:
> While QML already has a State type, this is not a complete, deterministic
> state machine. This is an overly simplified state machine, in that it
> provides little in terms of error checking or nested states.
>
> The proposed QQSM m
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) <
bstot...@ford.com> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
>
>
> My name is Brett Stottlemyer. I work for Ford Motor Company, and Ford has
> graciously agreed to let us contribute some of the cool stuff we’ve
> developed back to Qt. We aren’t quite done
Hi Brett and welcome,
On 30/05/2014 23:14, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
Hi list,
My name is Brett Stottlemyer. I work for Ford Motor Company, and Ford
has graciously agreed to let us contribute some of the cool stuff
we've developed back to Qt. We aren't quite done with everything yet
Hi list,
My name is Brett Stottlemyer. I work for Ford Motor Company, and Ford has
graciously agreed to let us contribute some of the cool stuff we've developed
back to Qt. We aren't quite done with everything yet (still waiting on the
Corporate CLA), but I will be at Qt Contributors Summit i
18 matches
Mail list logo
