Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

Op 16-12-2011 1:07, Giuseppe D'Angelo schreef: > >> fwiw, the usual elegant solution is having a value and a mask parameter. >> the mask could have two magic values meaning "un-/set all asserted in >> vlaue" to mean effectively what your bool means. the default argument >> would be the magic value

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

2011/12/16 Thiago Macieira : > I did read most of your email :-) Thanks for the effort so far. Hero :-) Thank you for reading! > I'd like to start by saying I agree with Ossi: the test/set way of setting > flags is "un-Qt-ish". I know it exists in a few places, but they are the vast > minority. I

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

On 15 December 2011 22:53, wrote: > Hi Giuseppe, Hi João, thanks for the comments. > I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm > actually referring to the API. > > I started looking at it and it seems too cluttered. Specially this early in > the process. It's h

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

Having been release manager for several past Qt feature releases (4.5 to 4.7), I'm wary of setting a single feature freeze date and having a big rush to cram all the new features into the master branch in the last couple of days before the deadline. Instead, I would like to see a staggered deli

Re: [Development] Qt Playground - 3D Audio module

Hello, On 14/12/11 8:53 AM, "ext Laszlo Papp" wrote: >I would like to work on a 3D Audio module in Qt Playground [1] that might >be >beneficial later for projects, like Qt3D, game engines, development >platforms, >or games without a platform underneath. Surprisingly enough, certain media >player

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

On 12/15/11 7:25 PM, "ext Peter Hartmann" wrote: >On 12/14/2011 06:42 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Wednesday, 14 de December de 2011 18.12.21, Stephen Kelly wrote: >>> Ok, well let's start the list: >>> >>> https://wiki.qt-project.org/5.0_Feature_Requirements > >my addition for network (f

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 22.53.19, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Giuseppe, > > I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm > actually referring to the API. Hi as well Giuseppe I did read most of your email :-) Thanks for the effort so far. I'd like

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

On 15 December 2011 19:45, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:43:49PM +, ext Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: >>    pos, matchedLength, endPos >> > inconsistent naming Well, pos and matchedLength come straight from QRegExp and I kept them. But please, any suggestion is welcome! (I

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

I'm quoting Robin's email (with some of my comments), because I think it was a great message that I don't want "lost": On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robin Burchell wrote: > Hi Tuukka, > > (now that I've left some hours to digest this...) > > 2011/12/15 Turunen Tuukka : > > So now there is tota

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

Hi Giuseppe, I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm actually referring to the API. I started looking at it and it seems too cluttered. Specially this early in the process. It's hard to review something that is trying to be everything or maybe it's just exposi

Re: [Development] Moving QUndoStack and QUndoCommand out of QtWidgets

On Thursday 15 December 2011 18:40:45 Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote: > Hi there, > > I would like to gather your opinion on whether we should move > QUndoStack and QUndoCommand out of QtWidgets so they could be used > without requiring this module as an extra dependency. > > After a brief investig

Re: [Development] Commit policy (was: Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version)

On Thursday 15 December 2011 22:31:32 Robin Burchell wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell wrote: > >> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt > >> 4.8?> > > I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a > > policy, i

[Development] Moving QUndoStack and QUndoCommand out of QtWidgets

Hi there, I would like to gather your opinion on whether we should move QUndoStack and QUndoCommand out of QtWidgets so they could be used without requiring this module as an extra dependency. After a brief investigation, I believe this could done by: 1- moving QUndoCommand entirely; 2- moving

Re: [Development] Commit policy (was: Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version)

Hi, On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell wrote: >> Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8? > > I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a > policy, it needs to be documented and communicated somewhere. You > can't expect this i

[Development] Commit policy (was: Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version)

Hi, On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:53:12 sinan.tanil...@nokia.com wrote: >> We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of >> contributions. > > Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

Hi Tuukka, (now that I've left some hours to digest this...) 2011/12/15 Turunen Tuukka : > So now there is total of 108 improvements and bug fixes available in Qt > Commercial 4.8.0 that are not part of the LGPL release. I want to underline > that this is not the intended way of differentiating o

Re: [Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:43:49PM +, ext Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: >pos, matchedLength, endPos > inconsistent naming > void setPatternOptions(PatternOptions options, bool on = true); > i don't like that too much, because *un*setting options en masse sucks - you need to make a "block"

[Development] QRegularExpression -- first round of API review

Hi everybody. Sorry for the length of thjis message, but doing API reviews by mail is hard, and I needed to explain many decisions here and there (and, of course, the API itself). :-( Attached to this mail (and also here: -- if you don't want to d

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > I've spoken about this to Tuukka in a couple of occasions. It's my > understanding that getting the Digia engineers become approvers and eventually > maintainers for the parts they work mostly on is their intention too. Right. > However,

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

I'm sure that will improve significantly once we get the sources into Gerrit, as it will drastically reduce the round-trip time for reviews, and will make the patches more visible to everybody. So, great job everybody on getting Qt 4.8.0 out; now let's get the wheels turning on moving Qt 4.x ov

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

> How can we most-easily discover the list of changes that > are in Qt Commercial 4.8.0 but not in (LGPL) Qt 4.8.0? Easiest is probably to diff source, but if you do not want to check out the Qt Commercial evaluation, you can see pending 4.8 merge requests in https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/merg

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

Tomasz Siekierda wrote: > Now, 2 possible additions to the freeze list: > 3. What about recently (and quite vigorously) discussed RegExp > overhaul? It is not on the list (yet). Should it be added? As far as I > gather from the discussion (I can't judge that myself fully), it is > pretty big, and p

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

Tuukka: How can we most-easily discover the list of changes that are in Qt Commercial 4.8.0 but not in (LGPL) Qt 4.8.0? We have several bugs we're particularly interested in... Atlant From: development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 13.01.06, Frans Klaver wrote: > I didn't intend to suggest that they should be parachuted in. It could > be worth investigating if some people from digia may have already > shown that they fit the bill. As far as I know current maintainers and > approvers have th

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:53:12 sinan.tanil...@nokia.com wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for you summary Tuukka. > > We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of > contributions. Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8? I also see

Re: [Development] Feature defines in Qt 5?

On Thursday, December 15, 2011 13:12:42 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 12.25.10, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > The reason I'm bringing it up is that I want to be able to communicate > > through the CMake files which features Qt was built excluding. > > > > For example, if

Re: [Development] Feature defines in Qt 5?

On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 12.25.10, Stephen Kelly wrote: > The reason I'm bringing it up is that I want to be able to communicate > through the CMake files which features Qt was built excluding. > > For example, if Qt was built with QT_NO_DATESTRING, it makes sense for all > downstreams

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 20:53:16 you wrote: > 3. What about recently (and quite vigorously) discussed RegExp > overhaul? It is not on the list (yet). Should it be added? As far as I > gather from the discussion (I can't judge that myself fully), it is > pretty big, and poses a threat to BC

[Development] Your target features for Qt 5.0

Hi, I'm just creating a new thread for greater visibility. Please collect your target features for Qt 5.0 in this wiki page: https://wiki.qt-project.org/5.0_Feature_Targets Please avoid adding features that can be added in a subsequent 5.x release and limit your entries only to features that

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robin Burchell wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: >> Wouldn't it make sense to have some people from digia as maintainers >> or approvers? > > If they earn the position through work and trustworthiness, sure. You > don't just parachute

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 18:42:49 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 de December de 2011 18.12.21, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > Ok, well let's start the list: > > > > https://wiki.qt-project.org/5.0_Feature_Requirements > > > > One thing we could do is: > > > > 1. Let people populate t

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

Hi, Thank you for you summary Tuukka. We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of contributions. Best regards, Sinan Tanilkan Mobile Phones Middleware - Integration and Quality Engineering http://wikis.in.nokia.com/QtQualityEngineering

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: > Wouldn't it make sense to have some people from digia as maintainers > or approvers? If they earn the position through work and trustworthiness, sure. You don't just parachute people in because it might make sense. __

Re: [Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Turunen Tuukka wrote: > Qt 4.8.0 and Qt Commercial 4.8.0 have been released today. I wanted to send > you e-mail about the delta between these. > > We have worked hard with 4.8 to improve it for desktop and embedded > platforms according to the needs of commercia

Re: [Development] Removing QtWebkit from gerrit (& qt5.git)

On Thursday, December 15, 2011 07:53:29 AM Knoll Lars wrote: > On 12/12/11 6:21 PM, "ext Robin Burchell" wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Rohan McGovern > > > > wrote: > >> Unfortunately the qtwebkit pointed at by qt5.git is outdated and known > >> not to work. > > > >Given that webkit i

Re: [Development] Feature defines in Qt 5?

On Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:06:47 you wrote: > On Monday 12 December 2011 15:21:40 Stephen Kelly wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Is there any plan to keep or remove the defines in features.txt in Qt 5? > > (eg, QT_NO_SQL, QT_NO_DATESTRING etc) > > > > A colleague told me about talk of removing

[Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

Hi All, Qt 4.8.0 and Qt Commercial 4.8.0 have been released today. I wanted to send you e-mail about the delta between these. We have worked hard with 4.8 to improve it for desktop and embedded platforms according to the needs of commercial licensees. We have fixed a lot of bugs and included

Re: [Development] Feature freeze date?

On 12/14/2011 06:42 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 de December de 2011 18.12.21, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> Ok, well let's start the list: >> >> https://wiki.qt-project.org/5.0_Feature_Requirements my addition for network (feel free to point out more): == Network == * SSL errors

Re: [Development] Feature defines in Qt 5?

On Monday 12 December 2011 15:21:40 Stephen Kelly wrote: > Hi there, > > Is there any plan to keep or remove the defines in features.txt in Qt 5? > (eg, QT_NO_SQL, QT_NO_DATESTRING etc) > > A colleague told me about talk of removing all the ifdefs, but he thought > he'd convinced whoever it was h

Re: [Development] Source incompatible proposal: removing Qt::WA_ values for widget orientation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, wrote: > It's not worth it IMO. Let's remove them. Done: http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,11280 http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,11281 (is also sort of related, relies on 11280) ___ Development mailing l