On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Simon Hausmann simon.hausm...@nokia.comwrote:
Hi Pierre,
I can see now how you'd be able to implement tracking with this, but I
wonder
how much more complex this makes your layout altogether, because hidden
fragments are right now subject to the layout and
Hi,
Currently we have at least the following in the source code (mainly for the
interface identifiers):
com.trolltech.Qt.*
com.trolltech.qml.*
com.nokia.Qt.*
com.nokia.qt.*
Any plans / on-going work to fix these legacies? I propose to use
org.qt-project.*.
Any other ideas?
org.qt-project sounds like the right default to me, for places where a reverse
domain is used.
The Nokia maps location plugin should probably still be com.nokia though.
-Original Message-
From: development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org
See https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-23273
I have a patch for removing it from Q_DECLARE_INTERFACE, see
http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,13570
It'll require more work to get rid of the other references. I'm especially
wondering what would break if we change the com.trolltech
The approval period has passed, and Robin has now gotten Approver status
today.
Congratulations Robin!
Cheers,
Lars
On 12/29/11 3:14 AM, ext Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
I'd like to nominate Robin Burchell (a.k.a. w00t on IRC) for approver in
Qt.
He's been around Qt for
Thanks all. I'll try do my best to not explode things. :)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nl wrote:
Op 19-1-2012 13:12, lars.kn...@nokia.com schreef:
The approval period has passed, and Robin has now gotten Approver status
today.
Congratulations Robin!
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:21:48PM +0100, ext Daniel Molkentin wrote:
On 1/19/2012 4:46 PM, ext Turunen Tuukka wrote:
In case there is still interest towards 4.7 in the community, we are happy
to make the source code available. What way would you prefer? We can, for
example, make this
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
the branch 4.7-digia
why not just put it in 4.7, so they're one and the same, and nobody
else needs to get confused about where to send
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 13:43:29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Abecasis wrote:
On 6. jan. 2012, at 21.27, ext David Faure wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2012 11:41:05 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Abecasis wrote:
I don't support putting this in QFile as has been suggested as, from my
experience with
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
the branch 4.7-digia
why not just put it in 4.7, so they're
On Thursday, 19 de January de 2012 19.32.23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to
On 19/01/2012 12:55, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald
Buddenhagenoswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:55:34PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
the thing is that 4.7 is closed as far as the qt project is concerned.
we have cemented this decision (made by qt nokia RM) by creating facts -
fixes are not being applied to 4.7 first, and given the strong
forward-merge-only preference, this cannot be revised without creating
ugliness.
On Jan 19, 2012, at 21:58 , ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
By the way, considering what Ossi said in the other email (4.7 is closed as
far as the qt project is concerned [...] [because] fixes are not being
applied
to 4.7 first), the Qt project needs to make a decision:
- reopen the 4.7
On Friday 06 January 2012 19:09:26 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 6 de January de 2012 21.38.19, David Faure wrote:
The first solution doesn't look nice. It would have to fail opening
completely.
Well, this is just like using ReadOnly | Truncate, for instance. These are
On 1/19/12 4:15 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 de January de 2012 21.24.36, Shaw Andy wrote:
For what it is worth I also agree that it should be changed, having
recently having to deal with the QDoubleValidator problem when it came
to
this became a
Sorry for top posting...
Yes, we are happy to maintain the 4.7 branch, thoug we are not planning more
releases to it unless something comes up.
Let's see where the decision settles, after which we do the needed actions, and
see who from Digia is the best one for this.
Yours,
Tuukka
18 matches
Mail list logo
