On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2012 04:12, ext André Somers wrote: >> Op 8-8-2012 10:49, Stephen Kelly schreef: >>> On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:35:15 André Somers wrote: >>> > Op 8-8-2012 10:30, Stephen Kelly schreef: >>> > > On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:03:34 ????????? ??????? wrote: >>> > > > In the QIcon/QIconLoader there are 2 old bugs with patches. >>> > > > - https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-17953 >>> > > > - https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-12874 >>> > > > Fixes are trivial, and are available for many years. Merging of them >>> > > > will take only an hour. >>> > > You need to submit patches to Qt through gerrit. Patches attached in >>> > > JIRA can't be applied. Note also that patches have to be applied to Qt >>> > > 5 first and unit tested. >>> > >>> > Nice, but these patches were submitted way before Gerrit was available. >>> > Are you saying we should just disgard any fixes that can be found in >>> JIRA? >>> >>> They are not covered by the CLA. >>> >> Are you sure about that? > > Yes, Stephen is correct, the CLA covers only patches which has been > submitted through Codereview.qt-project.org, so patches in > Jira/Wiki/email cannot be applied. > > Even if the author "gives" you copyright to submit it to codereview as > yourself (which is not allowed in many countries), _you_ would then be > personally responsible for granting the license to use any patents > his/her code might be infringing on. So, *don't* do that. Only submit > code you have written yourself and where you can stand by the > implementation. > > >>> Whether they are 'trivial' enough to 'not be copyrightable' isn't >>> for me to decide. I didn't look at them. >>> >>> Even when gerrit was not available, gitorious was available for all >>> the time that JIRA was available. JIRA has never been 'the way to >>> submit patches'. >> >> One of these had a MR on gitorious, actually. That got closed some >> time later because Gerrit got introduced in the meantime. So, I bet >> the contributor signed the agreement. I guess the submitter did not >> want to jump through the hoops again, in the hope that this time his >> patch *would* get accepted. > > A codereview can be done without using Gerrit of course, through email, > IRC or any other means which reaches the author. However, the CLA has > changed in several points since the Gitorious MR days (to the better, > after discussions with multiple parties active on codereview today). > This means that the old patches which were stuck or hadn't passed > through the Gitorious MR system before we switched will need to be > submitted again under the new terms. > > Frankly, the hurdle for doing so is not big, and if you have agreed to > the terms before, I'm sure the new term as just as good as the previous > ones. > > To reiterate what Stephen said, please submit patches through > http://codereview.qt-project.org, it's the only way we can properly > apply them. > > -- > .marius > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
As for the second bug report (https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-12874) shouldn't the standard icon paths be defined in the new class QStandardPaths? Then QIcon can use QStandardPaths to find icons - obviously. Right now i don't see any icon related thing in http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/qstandardpaths.html Since the icon stuff is defined by freedesktop (http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html#directory_layout) it might as well be added in there. Adding David Faure to the cc since he invented QStandardPaths. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
