On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:26:34PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Saturday 09 August 2014 17:12:43 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Saturday 09 August 2014 21:39:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
the 5.4 branch was created now.
i'll collect the re-targeting requests over the rest of the weekend
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Hausmann Simon
simon.hausm...@digia.com wrote:
Hi,
I sincerely hope that the class name will be reconsidered, given how generic
and therefore ambiguous the term volume is. Please consider making it more
specific by adding Storage or something else to the
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 12:58, Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenha...@digia.com
написал(а):
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:26:34PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Saturday 09 August 2014 17:12:43 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Saturday 09 August 2014 21:39:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I agree with Simon and Mark. Volume is a term that IMO will confuse most
people in this context. Storage sounds a lot better to me as well. Can we
please fix that? And a name change of course doesn’t block it from 5.4 :)
Cheers,
Lars
On 10/08/14 11:31, Mark Gaiser mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but that's not corrrect due to
network volumes, which are not drives, actually.
Any
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Иван Комиссаров abba...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:25:59PM +0400, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac2548041503f52c64b306d:src/systeminfo/qstorageinfo.h
Originally, my class was called QDriveInfo, but that's not
Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
Cheers,
Lars
On 10/08/14 12:48, Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenha...@digia.com
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:25:59PM +0400, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
I was thinking a bit and made a conclusion that volume is the exact word for
a mount point.
Mac OS API uses volume to represent mounted disks
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/CoreFoundation/Reference/CFURLEnumeratorRef/Reference/reference.html
Windows uses terms drives,
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Иван Комиссаров abba...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking a bit and made a conclusion that volume is the exact word
for a mount point.
Mac OS API uses volume to represent mounted disks
On Sunday 10 August 2014 12:39:52 Mark Gaiser wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Иван Комиссаров abba...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, QStorageInfo is already used in Qt:
https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtsystems/source/f0ca4494ccca6f247ac25480415
On Sunday 10 August 2014 10:58:24 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
lars' statement has no implications for the execution of the branching
procedure.
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's also how
we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the
On Sunday 10 August 2014 11:21:21 Knoll Lars wrote:
Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
I'm fine with that.
I'm also fine with QStorageInfo and removing the equivalent class from
(unreleased) qtsystems.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT)
Ok, let it be QStorageInfo then, i prefer shorter names:)
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 17:41, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
написал(а):
On Sunday 10 August 2014 11:21:21 Knoll Lars wrote:
Slightly longish, but how about QStorageDeviceInfo if you don’t like drive?
I'm fine
On 10/08/14 15:39, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Sunday 10 August 2014 10:58:24 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
lars' statement has no implications for the execution of the branching
procedure.
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
also how
Agreed. Could you then do me the favour and create a patch for qtsystems
that removes the class there?
Thanks,
Lars
On 10/08/14 15:59, Иван Комиссаров abba...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, let it be QStorageInfo then, i prefer shorter names:)
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 17:41, Thiago Macieira
I'll try to find some time:) However, i'd suggest renaming QStorageInfo to
QStorageWatcher and keep drive watching functionality.
Иван Комиссаров
10 авг. 2014 г., в 18:29, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@digia.com написал(а):
Agreed. Could you then do me the favour and create a patch for qtsystems
On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:42:49 Иван Комиссаров wrote:
I'll try to find some time:) However, i'd suggest renaming QStorageInfo to
QStorageWatcher and keep drive watching functionality.
I'm removing the whole class. Done at https://codereview.qt-project.org/91859
Adding the watch
On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
also how
we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the
procedure
without announcing ahead of time and letting people comment.
I think I’m
I've done renaming to QStorageInfo
(https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/73945/); but i don't have time to review
correctly and build on Mac (however, it seems it should compile). Also, i'm not
able to compile on Windows at all and i will be able to compile on Linux
tomorrow.
Can someone try
On 10/08/14 17:02, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things. It's
also how
we've done it for the past 4 feature releases. You can't change the
procedure
without
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
On 10/08/14 17:02, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Sunday 10 August 2014 14:27:51 Knoll Lars wrote:
It should, since it reflects the agreed-upon way of doing things.
It's also how we've done it for the past 4
On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:51:53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze
exception, I suggested and you agreed that we would have the weekend
to work on this and that the 5.4 branch
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday 10 August 2014 18:51:53 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:02PM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
It's about integrating the class. When Marc asked for a freeze
exception, I suggested and you agreed
On Sunday 10 August 2014 19:55:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Because it changed compared to previous times. It's irrelevant that the
previous times required such an action for technical reasons: it happened
that way. Now it
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 05:26:12PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday 10 August 2014 19:55:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Because it changed compared to previous times. It's irrelevant that the
previous times required
On Monday 11 August 2014 00:09:59 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
You're missing the obvious: there was a change and people were not ready
for it.
that's hardly an argument, given that everybody who paid any attention
at all knew that it would be *somehow* quite different (due to the
different
27 matches
Mail list logo
