On Thursday, 1 November 2018 19:18:11 PDT Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > We're studying what to do with QList, but the idea is that the name
> > "QList" will be completely ok and identical to QVector. The technical
> > mechanism is in flux.
>
> That means you will be pessimizing
We have a lot of API that, for Qt 6, we've already decided to extend to 64-bit
on 64-bit platforms, but keep as decently-sized 32-bit on 32-bit ones. We've
already created the type we want for Qt 6 and that's "qsizetype": a signed
integer the same size as size_t and ptrdiff_t. And a lot of new
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> We're studying what to do with QList, but the idea is that the name
> "QList" will be completely ok and identical to QVector. The technical
> mechanism is in flux.
That means you will be pessimizing element inserts and removals from O(n) to
O(mn), where n is the length
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 03:58:17 PDT Sascha Cunz wrote:
> > Qt6 won't be fully source-compatible. The idea is that we'll break it
> > to fix
> > things, but attempt to keep compatible as much as possible to avoid
> > death by a
> > thousand paper cuts.
>
> Does this rule out some kind of
>> As you may have noticed we still have several issues in our CI system which
>> needs fixes.
>>
>> Below is the frontline of CI teams battlefield >> [...]
Do we actually know what is _causing_ all the freezing and timeouts? I
hope this is not a case of throwing a few system upgrades at the
> -Original Message-
> From: Heikki Halmet
> Sent: Thursday, 1 November 2018 1:17 PM
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Short CI status
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As you may have noticed we still have several issues in our CI system which
> needs fixes.
>
> Below is the frontline of CI
Hi,
As you may have noticed we still have several issues in our CI system which
needs fixes.
Below is the frontline of CI teams battlefield:
* Windows 10 machines are freezing time to time and the logging suddenly
stops.
* https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-2253
*
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:41:49PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 31/10/2018 14.26, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:09:13PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> Again, how then does the consuming tool know which qt.core and which
> >> qt.gui are compatible with each
Hi!
We have now opened the nominations for Qt Champions in 2018!
As before, please think about who has helped you out the most during the past
year and nominate them via the Qt wiki at https://wiki.qt.io/QtChampions.
The categories are:
Community Builder
Content Creator
Quality Assurer
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:23:31 +, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Of course mailing list discussion is also completely fine.
It is more than that: it is the place where all fundamental decisions
concerning the Qt project ( like f.e. deprecating modules ) have to be
announced and discussed first -
> It’s convenient to quote what adds fuel to the fire of this discussion. Hence
> my attempt to add water by quoting what I thought it still relevant.
In a real life never add water to a fuel fire. It will cause even more fire
Gatis.
From: Development on
Hi,
Of course mailing list discussion is also completely fine. But in case someone
has a concrete suggestion related to any of the websites, it can be also
submitted via JIRA. Just like feature suggestions. It may be to not everyone
was aware of this, thus I provided the link.
Yours,
I agree, this is often the case.
I just wanted to emphasize that I think it’s too early to conclude that llvm is
going to switch to gn based on that email. It’s convenient to quote what adds
fuel to the fire of this discussion. Hence my attempt to add water by quoting
what I thought it still
I've seen that kind of argument before, so that's why I want put a comment
in here.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:58 PM Sascha Cunz wrote:
> I've seen lots of commercial code bases in the past where QObject
> inheriting classes are combined with QExplicitlySharedDataPointer -
> while at the same
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:24:16 +, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Things can always be improved, and constructive feedback is always
> welcome.
The bottom line of this all is of course the fundamental question if the
Qt Project is intended to be more than simply a way how to contribute to
the
Especially considering that the person proposing the change is working
at google which is where GN comes from. There's some conflict of
interest here.
On 01/11/2018 12:13, André Pönitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:34:34AM +, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>From the same email perhaps it's
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:34:34AM +, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>
> >From the same email perhaps it's also worth quoting the first paragraph:
> "
>
> first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now.
> Nobody is proposing that LLVM moves off cmake, and nobody is proposing
On 2018-10-31 16:46, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Qt6 won't be fully source-compatible. The idea is that we'll break it
to fix
things, but attempt to keep compatible as much as possible to avoid
death by a
thousand paper cuts.
Does this rule out some kind of smart pointer that would be used to
Hi,
Yes, "hard to work with" :).
Cheers,
BogDan.
În ziua de joi, 1 noiembrie 2018, la 11:24:29 EET, Vlad Stelmahovsky a scris:
> you mean "hard to work with"?
>
> On 11/1/18 9:34 AM, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >GN is the closest build system to QBS, the only problem
Hi,
Materials related to contributing to Qt and Qt Project are still there, not
been removed, see: https://www.qt.io/contribute-to-qt,
https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Contribution_Guidelines,
https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance, and
https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model - just to
> and also sometimes
> using the private-ish QFutureInterface to be able to use QFuture to
> its full extent, which makes us feel a little dirty :)
Good not to feel alone :)
Philippe
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:42:36 +0100
Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> There were some discussions last year on
>
There were some discussions last year on
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-61928 about the async API future
(pun intended). I'm sure there are a few old mailing list threads too.
I too would be interested in where Qt is heading in this area going
forward. We're using the current QtConcurrent
you mean "hard to work with"?
On 11/1/18 9:34 AM, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
Hi,
GN is the closest build system to QBS, the only problem it has it's
controled by Google and these guys are sometime had to work with.
Cheers,
BogDan.
În ziua de joi, 1 noiembrie 2018, la 10:30:01
Hi,I have to apologise for my behaviour. While I still think Christian
Gagneraud's attack on the Qt company abilities was unfair and uncalled for,
it's not a justification for my actions.Creating an hostile environment is bad
for the community and I should not have done it.It won't happen
On 01.11.18 08:49, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
Hi Christian,
What comes to the mistake with the mailing list archive, we of course fix it. Meanwhile,
use the workaround described by Andy: " It is there, but you have to go to
http://lists.qt-project.org for now, it is being moved to a new server so
Congratulations to Cristián. All rights have been set.
--
Alex
From: Alex Blasche
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2018 11:28:39 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Cc: Cristián Maureira-Fredes
Subject: Nominating Cristián Maureira-Fredes for approver
Hi,
I'd
>From the same email perhaps it's also worth quoting the first paragraph:
"
first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now.
Nobody is proposing that LLVM moves off cmake, and nobody is proposing
anything that's causing people using cmake more work.
"
Simon
Hi,
GN is the closest build system to QBS, the only problem it has it's
controled by Google and these guys are sometime had to work with.
Cheers,
BogDan.
În ziua de joi, 1 noiembrie 2018, la 10:30:01 EET, Nikolai Kosjar a scris:
> On 10/29/18 1:17 PM, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > Given that we are
On 10/29/18 1:17 PM, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Given that we are confident we can build Qt 6 with cmake, I believe that it
> makes most sense to follow down that route.
Just some observation:
LLVM/Clang is a bigger project using CMake for some longer time and
coincidentally, just now, there is a
Hi Christian,
What comes to the mistake with the mailing list archive, we of course fix it.
Meanwhile, use the workaround described by Andy: " It is there, but you have to
go to http://lists.qt-project.org for now, it is being moved to a new server so
at some point the https address will be
30 matches
Mail list logo
