On 05/06/14 00:22, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 11:12:11, Knoll Lars escreveu:
IMO it’s probably a mistake to bind the major so version number to the
number after Qt. There was a reason why Thiago wanted this, but I don’t
quite remember why.
IMO it
Hi,
New snapshot here:
http://download.qt-project.org/snapshots/qt/5.3/5.3.1/2014-06-05_100/
Unfortunately couple of windows installers are missing (Android msvc2012) :(
Qt5 changes in this snapshot:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,86473
Patch Set 6:
* qtbase 42f9a61...ac7bf97
On 05 Jun 2014, at 00:25, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
Em qua 04 jun 2014, às 10:32:17, Olivier Goffart escreveu:
In general, i think it would be beneficial to have some public API in
QObject to create dynamic signals or slots.
This has been asked from the QML-on-Go
On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 23:59:47 André Pönitz wrote:
thanks to must-have features like binary
compatibility (in the notable absence of any promise of behavioural
compatibility) it's close to impossible to change a name, or even get it
_out_ again.
As I wrote before, this Enginio situation
hello,
we finally have CI setups for the new branching scheme. this means that
5.3 (and 1.0 in enginio) are now the target branches for stabilization
changes aimed at the 5.3.1 release.
the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks and will
be merged into 5.3/1.0 regularly, so
Hi,
I found it a little not clear:
the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
but after week, where to need to do push new changes? in /5.3.2 ? /dev? :)
however, do not push new reviews for/stable
but where then to do push for new reviews?
BR,
Denis
2014-06-05 18:39
Hi,
On 05.06.2014 16:52, Denis Shienkov wrote:
Hi,
I found it a little not clear:
the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
but after week, where to need to do push new changes? in /5.3.2 ? /dev? :)
see below
however, do not push new reviews for/stable
but
Why do not change the 'dev' branch to 'next' ? or, just '5.4' instead?
I don't got it for new branching scheme.
2014-06-05 23:00 GMT+08:00 Sergio Ahumada sahum...@blackberry.com:
5.4.0 = refs/for/dev
--
Best Regards
Yuchen
___
Development
El Wednesday 04 June 2014, Olivier Goffart escribió:
Where is it? Do you have any URL?
He replied to my privately (by mistake I suppose) saying it was on github, so
after a search:
https://github.com/u19809/DynamicQObject
--
Alex (a.k.a. suy) | GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2
http://barnacity.net/ |
Sergio, many thanks..
BR,
Denis
05.06.2014 19:00, Sergio Ahumada пишет:
Hi,
On 05.06.2014 16:52, Denis Shienkov wrote:
Hi,
I found it a little not clear:
the stable branches will continue to exist for the next weeks
but after week, where to need to do push new changes? in /5.3.2 ?
I am trying to create a plugin consisting of QML types but no C++ classes. I
built a simple QML file called MyPlugin.qml that starts with “pragma Singleton”
and resides in mypath\MyPlugin. My qmldir file consists of
module MyPlugin
singleton MyPlugin 1.0 MyPlugin.qml
When I run
I think 'next' work tell people, it's the next release, for now it's
unstable.
But 'dev' don't tell people anything.
Because all of the branch should being develop state. except the release
branch, e.g. '5.3.x'.
Why this 'dev' branch is special?
Why don't use a better name?
2014-06-05 23:31
Em sex 06 jun 2014, às 13:22:28, Yuchen Deng escreveu:
I think 'next' work tell people, it's the next release, for now it's
unstable.
But 'dev' don't tell people anything.
Because all of the branch should being develop state. except the release
branch, e.g. '5.3.x'.
Why this 'dev' branch is
The people know the 'release' 'stable' branch for a long time TOO.
but it will gone for soon. right?
so, Why 'release' 'stable' need to gone because some reasons, but 'dev'
does not? and we have a reason: better understand for many people will
touch Qt in future.
If we need to change the
Whether or not next is a better name than dev is your opinion, it isn't
necessarily a fact. I for one like dev and find it a name better than next.
We could run a poll and see what name comes out and change to that. But is it
really worth the effort and disruption? I'm not convinced that it
15 matches
Mail list logo
