Re: [Development] Basing Qt Creator Coding Style on C++ Core Guidelines?

2016-12-01 Thread Marc Mutz 
On Friday 02 December 2016 07:45:48 Tobias Hunger wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Am 28.11.2016 15:33 schrieb "Marc Mutz" :
> > To see how simple gsl::owner markup is to incorporate into Qt, I sat
> 
> down, added it to QtGlobal and marked up QScopedPointer (incl. docs) with
> gsl::owner.
> 
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/178107
> 
> Owner does not work with Qt's object tree, so this seems like a pointless
> exercise to me. Having some owners but not being able to use them
> consistently is not a big win and already possible with plain C++ smart
> pointers.
> 
> I asked Bjarne Stroustrup at Meeting C++ about Owner and object trees and
> he said that is a memory model that is not supported and that we are on our
> own there.

As you can see, I was not using it on QObject, as, indeed, the ownership there 
is messed up.

But we have tons of take*() and take()-like API, where even in auto-tests, 
which presumably were written by people that know the API well, the return 
value was ignored/leaked, making this kind of API a strong case for use of 
owner<>.

If the Qt low-level smart pointer do not support gsl::owner, then we impair 
users that wish to use the GSL in their own code from using it, because Qt 
code will throw false positives.

Thanks,
Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz  | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Basing Qt Creator Coding Style on C++ Core Guidelines?

2016-12-01 Thread Tobias Hunger 
Hi Marc,

Am 28.11.2016 15:33 schrieb "Marc Mutz" :
> To see how simple gsl::owner markup is to incorporate into Qt, I sat
down, added it to QtGlobal and marked up QScopedPointer (incl. docs) with
gsl::owner.
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/178107

Owner does not work with Qt's object tree, so this seems like a pointless
exercise to me. Having some owners but not being able to use them
consistently is not a big win and already possible with plain C++ smart
pointers.

I asked Bjarne Stroustrup at Meeting C++ about Owner and object trees and
he said that is a memory model that is not supported and that we are on our
own there.

Best Regards,
Tobias
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] New library in qtbase

2016-12-01 Thread Kevin Kofler 
Samuel Gaist wrote:
> The idea is to implement the notification part which would be then used by
> QSystemTrayIcon.

Then you want to use the freedesktop.org "Galago" notification spec.

Kevin Kofler

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Recommendations for 3rd-party QCH file installation folder for easy discovery?

2016-12-01 Thread Kevin Kofler 
Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> As it seems that Qt Assistant automatically adds (after restart) new QCH
> files it discovers in the QT_INSTALL_DOCS folder to the default help file
> collection, simply installing any 3rd-party QCH files into that folder
> would serve the use-case of automatic addition to Qt Assistant after
> install. And thus this is what I propose now as well to do. After all
> installing into the Qt system dirs is also done already for 3rd-party
> plugins, mkspec files or QML imports.

As a distro packager, I think this is definitely the way to go. Tracking 
what package any individual file comes from is what the package manager is 
for. This is also how it works for manpages, .desktop files, etc.

> And seeing that KDE uses /usr/share/doc/HTML for documentation in html/
> docbook(?) format I am for now proposing
> /usr/share/doc/QCH
> as folder where packages would drop the QCH/qthelp system specific files,

Why would we need to invent yet another directory? QT_INSTALL_DOCS in Fedora 
is currently /usr/share/doc/qt5, I think that is perfectly fine. It is also 
versioned, so you do not get, e.g., kdelibs4 apidocs in the Qt 5 Assistant, 
or the other way round.

I think you should just use the existing QT_INSTALL_DOCS directory and stick 
to it, no need to reinvent the wheel and break compatibility.

Kevin Kofler

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Basing Qt Creator Coding Style on C++ Core Guidelines?

2016-12-01 Thread Kevin Kofler 
Marc Mutz wrote:
> To see how simple gsl::owner markup is to incorporate into Qt, I sat
> down, added it to QtGlobal and marked up QScopedPointer (incl. docs)
> with gsl::owner.
> 
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/178107

This is just pointless noise making the code more verbose for no practical 
benefit whatsoever.

Kevin Kofler

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.9

2016-12-01 Thread Julius Bullinger 
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Development 
[mailto:development-bounces+julius.bullinger=asctec...@qt-project.org] Im 
Auftrag von Jani Heikkinen
Gesendet: Tuesday, 29 November, 2016 12:08
An: Thiago Macieira ; development@qt-project.org
Betreff: Re: [Development] Qt 5.9

> And how to encourage users to use online installers instead of offline ones? 
> One solution could be that we start using online ones at
> first & bring offline ones later. Earlier we have released beta with offline 
> only so should we do this differently with Qt 5.9: 
> 
> Qt 5.9 alpha: src only
> Qt 5.9 beta: online only
> Qt 5.9 rc & final: online + offline

I hope it's okay to chime in here as a non-developer, but I would actually 
really be happy about that!

I really like to test beta-versions on Windows, but can't justify installing a 
completely new Qt environment (including another Creator instance with its own 
kits and settings).

If the beta was available in the online installer, I would happily start 
testing today!
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Recommendations for 3rd-party QCH file installation folder for easy discovery?

2016-12-01 Thread Tomasz Siekierda 
On 30 November 2016 at 17:14, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau  wrote:
>
> And seeing that KDE uses /usr/share/doc/HTML for documentation in html/
> docbook(?) format I am for now proposing
> /usr/share/doc/QCH

Sounds good.

And just to add my voice - I think automatic pickup of QCH files is
something very worth introducing (and not only on Linux).
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

[Development] Qt 5.8.0 change files. MAINTAINERS: your actions needed

2016-12-01 Thread Jani Heikkinen 
Hi,

We did initial change files for Qt 5.8.0 (for those modules where missing), see 
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/message:%22Add+changes+file+for+5.8.0%22,n,z

Maintainers, please take those over & finalize as soon as possible. And of 
course make sure those will be reviewed soon as well. We need to get all these 
in now, RC is planned to happen 13th Dec!

br,
Jani




___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development