>
> Yeah, I think something along the lines of "the following weeks". Like in
> 2-4
> weeks or so as far as I heard.
>
Indeed, here is the proof:
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-August/005571.html
Laszlo
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I just wanted to notify you that a fix to this notorious QtScript bug was
> released in time for 4.8.3. For now, I can retract my statement that QtScript
> should be considered dangerous :) So Kate can stick to QtScript and I don'
On Monday 13 August 2012 17:34:12 Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I just wanted to notify you that a fix to this notorious QtScript bug was
> > released in time for 4.8.3. For now, I can retract my statement that
> > QtScript should be
On Monday, August 13, 2012 15:44:43 Milian Wolff wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I just wanted to notify you that a fix to this notorious QtScript bug was
> released in time for 4.8.3. For now, I can retract my statement that
> QtScript should be considered dangerous :) So Kate can stick to QtScript
> and I
Hey all,
I just wanted to notify you that a fix to this notorious QtScript bug was
released in time for 4.8.3. For now, I can retract my statement that QtScript
should be considered dangerous :) So Kate can stick to QtScript and I don't
have to port it to KJS at the upcoming hack sprint!
See a
On Thursday 24 May 2012 12:57:14 David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 24 May 2012 10:59:21 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > they said they will probably not spent the considerable amount of time
> > in updating the archaic jsc checkout used in QtScript.
>
> What about the solution of updating the JSC in QtS
On Thursday 24 May 2012 11:28:41 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> -- Note: Reposting to follow Dominik's example of CCing kde-core-devel --
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > We have port Kate away from QtScript.
>
> I'm not sure, whether this is a serious suggestion, o
On Thursday 24 May 2012 10:59:21 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> Hi Milian,
Hey Dominik, sorry for the long pause. Answers inline below.
> CC: kde-core-devel, as this is really a tough issue...
>
> there are other applications like Kile that heavily use QtScript for
> scripting as well, so porting away
Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On Friday, 25. May 2012 21:42:50 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> > Still, a fix for QtScript would be the nicest solution or a port to the
>> > "new" engine provided in Qt5, as I understood, there QtScript is anyway
>> > "deprecated" in favour of the V
On Friday, 25. May 2012 21:42:50 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > Still, a fix for QtScript would be the nicest solution or a port to the
> > "new" engine provided in Qt5, as I understood, there QtScript is anyway
> > "deprecated" in favour of the V8 based new variant?
>
> Nope
Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:14:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
>> > So it's probably non-trivial to create this patch (haven't looked
>> > into
>> > it, though), a dead end as it's Qt4, and unclear, whether such a
>> > patch
>> > would be accepted at all in the Qt 4.x line, g
On Friday, 25. May 2012 12:32:07 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > Right, maybe an increase of the allowed memory would work, or similar
> > changes...
>
> Isn't the problem that the pointer size it uses is too small?
As you see, I didn
On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:14:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On [1], the Kent Hansen says:
ime, Kent tends to be focused on the better future rather than the pragmatic
present while tending to ignore use cases that his team doesn't have
themselves. this can make using things that comes from his tea
2012/5/25, Martin Sandsmark :
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Dominik Haumann wrote:
>> Right, maybe an increase of the allowed memory would work, or similar
>> changes...
>
> Isn't the problem that the pointer size it uses is too small?
It likely asserts in the casting comparism.
tl;
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Dominik Haumann wrote:
> Right, maybe an increase of the allowed memory would work, or similar
> changes...
Isn't the problem that the pointer size it uses is too small?
--
Martin Sandsmark
On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:55:08 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:14:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > And it's unclear, whether a jsc update would fix the issue, btw :-)
>
> Still, a fix for QtScript would be the nicest solution or a port to the
Right, maybe an increase of the
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:14:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > So it's probably non-trivial to create this patch (haven't looked
> > into
> > it, though), a dead end as it's Qt4, and unclear, whether such a
> > patch
> > would be accepted at all in the Qt 4.x line, given that the focus
> > is
> > on
On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:14:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> So it's probably non-trivial to create this patch (haven't looked into
> it, though), a dead end as it's Qt4, and unclear, whether such a patch
> would be accepted at all in the Qt 4.x line, given that the focus is
> on Qt5 now.
And it's un
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:57:14 David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 24 May 2012 10:59:21 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> > they said they will probably not spent the considerable amount of time
> > in updating the archaic jsc checkout used in QtScript.
>
> What about the solution of updating the JSC in Q
On Thursday 24 May 2012, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 22:08:08 Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > We have port Kate away from QtScript.
>
> I want to remind that today is beta tagging for 4.9 and we are already in
> feature and dependency freeze.
>
> No matter how we turn it: switc
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:28:41AM +0200, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> 1. AFAIR, there are some subtle differences between KJS and QtScript. I'd be
> hard pressed to provide an example, but I know for sure that I have run into
> some, personally. Some code that worked fine in QtScript did not
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:59:21AM +0200, Dominik Haumann wrote:
> Another question is: Maybe we'll have similar/other issues with kjs? ;)
But KJS is maintained and has actual developers you can talk with (even on
IRC!). Failing that, it is developed together with the rest of KDE, so you
can even
On Thursday 24 May 2012 10:59:21 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> they said they will probably not spent the considerable amount of time
> in updating the archaic jsc checkout used in QtScript.
What about the solution of updating the JSC in QtScript, and submitting that
on codereview.qt-project.org?
I.e
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 22:08:08 Milian Wolff wrote:
> > We have port Kate away from QtScript.
I want to remind that today is beta tagging for 4.9 and we are already in
feature and dependency freeze.
No matter how we turn it: switching the scripting engine cannot count as a
bugfix and might
-- Note: Reposting to follow Dominik's example of CCing kde-core-devel --
Hi,
On Wednesday 23 May 2012, Milian Wolff wrote:
> We have port Kate away from QtScript.
I'm not sure, whether this is a serious suggestion, or just a way to catch
attention. In the latter case: it worked. In the former
Hi Milian,
CC: kde-core-devel, as this is really a tough issue...
there are other applications like Kile that heavily use QtScript for scripting
as well, so porting away KatePart from QtScript may solve the issue for
KDevelop, the real problem lies (as you say) within QtScript, not Kate. The
r
26 matches
Mail list logo
