KDAB didn't actually explain anything. AFAICT, there's no statement.
Just a vague post explaining nothing.
So I'm not sure what the point of asking Qt about it is. You should be
asking KDAB what their issue is. If they see a problem, they should
state what that problem is.
On 08/11/17 12:54
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 02:33:54 PST Lars Knoll wrote:
> Things are probably not perfect though, and I do believe we have areas where
> we (as in TQtC) can and should improve. One example: Since we have
> development teams working in the same office, some items and ideas that are
> discussed
08.11.2017, 15:22, "Lars Knoll" :
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> this is probably more a topic for the development mailing list, but since we
> have it here:
Oops, I didn't check what list this is on :(
>
>> On 8 Nov 2017, at 12:31, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>
>>> Things are probably not perfect thoug
For some reasons I interpreted 'because it goes without saying' as 'Qt
project development goes without saying it is open-governance-driven'
and not as 'this is so obvious that there is no need to even say it'.
Thank you for clarification and I beg pardon for the confusion caused
by my confusion :
Hi Konstantin,
this is probably more a topic for the development mailing list, but since we
have it here:
On 8 Nov 2017, at 12:31, Konstantin Tokarev
mailto:annu...@yandex.ru>> wrote:
Things are probably not perfect though, and I do believe we have areas where we
(as in TQtC) can and should i
> Am 08.11.2017 um 11:54 schrieb Alexander Ivash :
>
> This is really confusing.
>
> From one side,
>
>>> What you **don't** say is, that you "genuinely wish to treat the Qt
>>> Project as an Open Governance project and that external contributions
>>> are welcomed and valued."
>>>
>>> There m
> On 8 Nov 2017, at 11:54, Alexander Ivash wrote:
>
> This is really confusing.
>
> From one side,
>
>>> What you **don't** say is, that you "genuinely wish to treat the Qt
>>> Project as an Open Governance project and that external contributions
>>> are welcomed and valued."
>>>
>>> There mu
08.11.2017, 13:34, "Lars Knoll" :
>> On 8 Nov 2017, at 09:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:17:30 PST m...@herrdiel.de wrote:
>>> --> You say that KDAB contributed much work and that you: "[...] hope to
>>> have KDAB back contributing", but you also state, that
This is really confusing.
From one side,
>> What you **don't** say is, that you "genuinely wish to treat the Qt
>> Project as an Open Governance project and that external contributions
>> are welcomed and valued."
>>
>> There must be a reason not to write this sentence.
>
> Because it goes withou
> On 8 Nov 2017, at 09:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:17:30 PST m...@herrdiel.de wrote:
>> --> You say that KDAB contributed much work and that you: "[...] hope to
>> have KDAB back contributing", but you also state, that they are not
>> exactly much-needed: "Every
On 8 November 2017 at 13:35, Roland Hughes wrote:
> Not that weird really. If this is an embedded system and a well designed
> one, the first layer of "tests" would be the built in diagnostics mode which
> exercises all of the components and blurts out various settings/values.
> Depending on the s
Yes your are right Christian, it is a graphical application in which were
already have minor tests that are executed before the application
initialization. As this is only math tests they don't have dependencies
with the application are made with the paradigm of contracts (input and
output asserts)
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:17:30 PST m...@herrdiel.de wrote:
> --> You say that KDAB contributed much work and that you: "[...] hope to
> have KDAB back contributing", but you also state, that they are not
> exactly much-needed: "Everything continues just as before."
Please insert "else" in th
13 matches
Mail list logo
