Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread d3fault
Meh, sorry for the noise. That analogy sucks actually. Knowledge of the serial killer rapist on a limited basis (a la private disclosure) does not empower others (script kiddies)... so the analogy fails. The point about not going outside when a killer is *KNOWN* to be right out your door is still v

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread d3fault
>Yes having your systems online is a risk... and so is going outside. >But if you ***KNOW*** there's a man with a gun standing outside your >door, you aren't going to go outside. Yay another analogy that fits way better than I first realized. Would you be OK with the news/police withholding info

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread d3fault
>this group WILL be hacked Nah. "WILL" is too strong a statement. More like: very very very very likely ;-) >Besides, this argument does not counter mine. I am asserting that the number >of attackers who get access to the exploits before they become public is much, >much smaller than the number o

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2012 19.42.12, d3fault wrote: > >What's more important in this is that the > >level of competence and resources in the exploit community varies a lot. I > >can agree that exploiters with vast resources may learn the security > >issues before the full disclosure hap

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread d3fault
Thank you Thiago for actually presenting an argument instead of just responding with noise (or just dismissively waving your hand as in the case of Lars). On 10/25/12, Thiago Macieira wrote: >commercial entities have good people who make intelligent and logical >decisions. > Intelligent and log

Re: [Development] Qt5 build problems and bug reporting procedure

2012-10-25 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2012 20.38.45, Geoffrey Gowey wrote: > Hello All, > > I'm trying to compile Qt5 on Solaris 11 and am running in to bugs. I don't > mind mopping up Solaris compile issues on Qt4 and Qt5, but a question about > procedure: should I continue to post my build issues t

[Development] Qt5 build problems and bug reporting procedure

2012-10-25 Thread Geoffrey Gowey
Hello All, I'm trying to compile Qt5 on Solaris 11 and am running in to bugs. I don't mind mopping up Solaris compile issues on Qt4 and Qt5, but a question about procedure: should I continue to post my build issues to the mailing list or just open tickets on Jira only? Current build error: CC -

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Rohan McGovern
Shawn Rutledge said: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:00:47PM +1000, Rohan McGovern wrote: > > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > > unanswered... > > > > > steveire> [06:32:44] CI is seriously

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Charley Bay
Shawn Rutledge spaketh: > Personally I think the fundamental problem which CI could do better is to > triage problems. , > > I think when a test fails, the CI system should try to break down the > patch set in some way. For example it could divide the patch set in half, > arbitrarily, and see if

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2012 00.18.32, d3fault wrote: > Qt has corporate roots. Responsible Disclosure has been in place since > the Trolltech days. Corporations tend to prefer Responsible Disclosure > because it pleases their commercial customers. Commercial entities > like to keep their

Re: [Development] Cleanup of QCoreApplication::watchUnixSignal

2012-10-25 Thread shane.kearns
> -Original Message- > From: development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org] > On Behalf Of Rafael Roquetto > Sent: 25 October 2012 15:17 > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: [Development] Cleanup

Re: [Development] Qt 4.8.4 release candidates are available

2012-10-25 Thread Salovaara Akseli
Hi, We are currently working on Mac release package related problems and therefore those cannot be found from http://releases.qt-project.org/digia/4.8.4_RC/ . If you have findings from other packages please send those to releas...@qt-project.org . Br, Akseli F

Re: [Development] Cleanup of QCoreApplication::watchUnixSignal

2012-10-25 Thread Philip Ashmore
On 25/10/12 15:16, Rafael Roquetto wrote: > Hello, > > Afaik QCoreApplication::watchUnixSignal() seems to be no longer used, at least > in Qt5. If that is really the case, would anyone object doing away with it > (and removing the overhead from QEventDispatchUnix::doSelect() and co.)? > Otherwise,

[Development] Cleanup of QCoreApplication::watchUnixSignal

2012-10-25 Thread Rafael Roquetto
Hello, Afaik QCoreApplication::watchUnixSignal() seems to be no longer used, at least in Qt5. If that is really the case, would anyone object doing away with it (and removing the overhead from QEventDispatchUnix::doSelect() and co.)? Otherwise, what are the possible use cases? Any thoughts? - R

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2012 09.00.40, Koehne Kai wrote: > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,38146 > > A couple of notes: > - I'm trying to not only link libxcb-icccm statically, but all libxcb-* > libs. > - it still leaves a general libxcb.so dependency on Ubuntu 11.10 at > le

[Development] "adjust to qt_plugin.prf changes", submit policy

2012-10-25 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
moin, i posted such changes to several modules. to my dismay, some maintainers have already approved *and staged/submitted* these changes without being asked to, thus breaking things (because these changes depend on pending qtbase changes). i don't know how many more times i need to repeat this: a

Re: [Development] CI system migration completed

2012-10-25 Thread mark.keir
The principal credit for the migration goes to Rohan. Congratulations to Rohan and the Digia team. Mark On 25/10/2012, at 20:38, "ext Anttila Janne" wrote: > Hi, > > Qt-Project CI system migration to Digia hosting has been completed. > The last three projects (QtBase_master_Integration,Qt_4

[Development] CI system migration completed

2012-10-25 Thread Anttila Janne
Hi, Qt-Project CI system migration to Digia hosting has been completed. The last three projects (QtBase_master_Integration,Qt_4.8_Integration and Qt5_master_Integration) were migrated during this morning. AFAIK migration for all expect one last project succeeded without any problems. There we

Re: [Development] QmlImportPath

2012-10-25 Thread Koehne Kai
> -Original Message- > From: Chris Adams [mailto:chris.ad...@qinetic.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:23 AM > To: Koehne Kai > Cc: Wehmer, Matthias; development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] QmlImportPath > > [...] > I believe that the problem is that (as Aaron st

Re: [Development] Heads up for Windows devs: ANGLE landing soon

2012-10-25 Thread Koehne Kai
> -Original Message- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Jason Barron > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:40 AM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Heads

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Samuel Rødal
On 10/25/2012 11:46 AM, Koehne Kai wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org >> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On >> Behalf Of Konstantin Tokarev >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:33 AM >> To: Thiago

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
25.10.2012, 13:46, "Koehne Kai" : >>  -Original Message- >>  From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org >>  [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On >>  Behalf Of Konstantin Tokarev >>  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:33 AM >>  To: Thiago

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Koehne Kai
> -Original Message- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Konstantin Tokarev > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:33 AM > To: Thiago Macieira; development@qt-project.org > Subject:

Re: [Development] Heads up for Windows devs: ANGLE landing soon

2012-10-25 Thread Jason Barron
> Sounds great! > But I thought it should only work with mingw-w64 (support directx9), > not mingw.org, that right? That's correct. I'll make sure the documentation is up-to-date on that point. Myself and Kai have it working using the MinGW-Builds flavor of MinGw which as I

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
22.10.2012, 18:58, "Thiago Macieira" : > On segunda-feira, 22 de outubro de 2012 16.16.57, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > >>  22.10.2012, 15:53, "Koehne Kai" : >>>  Hi, >>> >>>  In Qt 5 we're relying on libxcb instead of the aging xlib. One drawback is >>>  that it limits the portability of Qt binar

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Shawn Rutledge
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:00:47PM +1000, Rohan McGovern wrote: > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > unanswered... > > > steveire> [06:32:44] CI is seriously depresssing. For the last 24 hou

Re: [Development] xcb-icccm dependency in Qt 5/libxcb

2012-10-25 Thread Koehne Kai
> -Original Message- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:58 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] xcb-i

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread Thorbjørn Martsum
*I am a citizen/_user_ of this open governance project?* Please read: http://qt-project.org/wiki/The_Qt_Governance_Model Maybe you are a user, but from what I have read are not 'Evangelizing about the Project' and you are not 'Providing moral support' (you are telling how terrible things are). Yo

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Simon Hausmann
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 02:32:49 PM Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 25/10/12 13:00, Rohan McGovern wrote: > > True, there used to be Nokia employees reading every failure report and > > chasing up apparently unstable tests, either trying to fix the tests, or > > acknowledge them via bug reports an

Re: [Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread André Somers
Op 25-10-2012 9:18, d3fault schreef: < a big re-itteration of yet the same arguments> Indeed, time for a conclusion. Oh wait: Lars already gave that conclusion: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-October/007511.html Sorry that the conclusion doesn't match your ideas of the ide

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 13:00:47 Rohan McGovern wrote: > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > unanswered... > > jpnurmi> [07:30:23] steveire: np, those tests have been annoying me > > se

[Development] Proposal: Time to decide what security policy the Qt Project will use (not Trolltech/Nokia/Digia)

2012-10-25 Thread d3fault
Qt has corporate roots. Responsible Disclosure has been in place since the Trolltech days. Corporations tend to prefer Responsible Disclosure because it pleases their commercial customers. Commercial entities like to keep their end users in the dark because vulnerabilities reflect poorly on the com