On Friday, 15 January 2021 11:39:29 PST Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> First of all, there has been no agreement on renaming the tools.
Only that it needs to be done.
> The latest proposal is at https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-89170
>
> Second, it's not a feature.
So long as no one later
> * Wait a month, remove symlink, wait a month
I guess a week on each side will be sufficient, but please reserve some
time.
That said: +1
Cheers,
Robert
Am 15.01.2021 um 11:50 schrieb Volker Hilsheimer:
+1, thanks Eddy.
Cheers,
Volker
On 15 Jan 2021, at 11:41, Nibedit Dey wrote:
+1
Hi!
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 16:40, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
>
> On 1/11/21 6:20 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 January 2021 02:45:13 PST Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> >> Qt 6.1 Feature Freeze will be effect at the end of January so there is only
> >> 3 weeks left to implement new features
On 1/11/21 6:20 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 11 January 2021 02:45:13 PST Jani Heikkinen wrote:
Qt 6.1 Feature Freeze will be effect at the end of January so there is only
3 weeks left to implement new features for Qt 6.1!
Where's the tool renaming changes in the CMakeLists.txt? It's
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:19:56AM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 14 Jan 2021, at 23:23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
I must have missed that. Could you share your idea again, it sounds
great.
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-September/037465.html
FWIW, I know it’s
+1, thanks Eddy.
Cheers,
Volker
> On 15 Jan 2021, at 11:41, Nibedit Dey wrote:
>
> +1
> Thank you Edward for the proposal.
> It sounds good to me.
>
> Best Regards,
> Nibedit
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne
> wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> > Qt5
+1
Thank you Edward for the proposal.
It sounds good to me.
Best Regards,
Nibedit
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:17 PM Edward Welbourne
wrote:
> Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> > Qt5 repo contains many branches and some have ambiguous names with
> > respect to the Qt version. e.g: It
> On 14 Jan 2021, at 23:23, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 02:08:43PM +, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>> Nevertheless, federating the declaration of the dependencies across modules
>> out to each module is the right idea, I think.
>>
> no, it's not. for tightly bound
Nibedit Dey (14 January 2021 22:18) wrote:
> Qt5 repo contains many branches and some have ambiguous names with
> respect to the Qt version. e.g: It is not clear whether the dev branch
> is applicable to Qt5 development or Qt6.
That ambiguity, at least, would go away if the module were called
