On Thursday 13 March 2014 10:57:38 Paul Olav Tvete wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2014 10:57:19 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Em qua 12 mar 2014, às 18:46:15, Martin Koller escreveu: > > > For me the code porting looks a bit "unfinished" due to this Q_WS > > > artefacts, so I just fear that problems arise. > > > > It's possible. > > Yes, there are still probably some regressions from 4.x left after the QPA > rewrite of the Qt internals. However, the fact that we have not cleaned up > all > the #ifdefs yet is not an indication of that. > > In Qt4 times, QPA was one of several platforms. At that time we kept the old > Q_WS_* code alive while creating the QPA plugins. We could not remove the old > #ifdefs then, even after implementing the corresponding functionality in QPA. > > The fact that we have not removed all the old dead code afterwards is mainly > an indication of how much time we have to fix P2 and P3 tasks: it mainly > happens when someone is working on the relevant part of the code anyway.
Thanks for the explanation. It's very welcome! -- Best regards/Schöne Grüße Martin A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top posting bad? () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against proprietary attachments Geschenkideen, Accessoires, Seifen, Kulinarisches: www.bibibest.at _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
