Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-05-13 Thread Sivan Greenberg
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, wrote: > 4.  The QDoc commands and functionality are not known well enough by > For issue 4 I would like to point people to > http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qdoc/ this is the URL of the qdoc > manual. If everybody follows what is written there and reports bugs

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-24 Thread Thiago Macieira
On terça-feira, 24 de abril de 2012 14.48.10, techabc wrote: > 1. Does the beta will coming in end of this month aka. April ? No, probably a few weeks more. > 2. Is there binary packages with this upcoming beta ? That's the idea. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Ar

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-24 Thread lars.knoll
On 4/24/12 9:53 AM, "ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com" wrote: >Hi, > >I just cut out the rest of the email for clarity. (great that you would >want to help) > >I just want to talk about the inherits and inherited by problem. >"Inherits" should always work, because you compile the Qt code that way

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-24 Thread casper.vandonderen
Hi, I just cut out the rest of the email for clarity. (great that you would want to help) I just want to talk about the inherits and inherited by problem. "Inherits" should always work, because you compile the Qt code that way (you cannot subclass a class that doesn't exist yet). I just want to

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-23 Thread techabc
1. Does the beta will coming in end of this month aka. April ? 2. Is there binary packages with this upcoming beta ? 2012/4/16 Rohan McGovern : > jason.mcdon...@nokia.com said: >> > Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how >> > often those insignificant tests actually fail

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-23 Thread Sivan Greenberg
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, André Somers wrote: > I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links > that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be > able to see relations between some major classes, like QObject -> > QWidget. You'd only be able

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-23 Thread Sivan Greenberg
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM, wrote: > TL;DR: We need to change the way Qt does documentation. A lot of things > will change and we need help from everybody. > This is granted, but as the whole Qt5 process looks, this will be for the good. > As mentioned by Lars: We should make sure the quali

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-16 Thread casper.vandonderen
Hi, > >There are other tasks that seems to be missing. > >- What is documentation? Are we talking only about the API docs or also >about code examples, tutorials, demo videos? I don't want to talk about any of the non-API documentation for now, since that is also a mess that needs to be cleaned u

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-15 Thread Rohan McGovern
jason.mcdon...@nokia.com said: > > Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how > > often those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to > > figure out which ones are actually working, and therefore should not > > be marked as insignificant. > > I'm glad you aske

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-15 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 18:49:34 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > On 4/12/12 5:06 PM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" > > wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, ext Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> I'd like to see another model attempted next time, like all commits > >> going to master, and a 'st

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread marius.storm-olsen
On 13/04/2012 09:41, ext jason.mcdon...@nokia.com wrote: >> Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how >> often those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to >> figure out which ones are actually working, and therefore should >> not be marked as insignificant.

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread jason.mcdonald
> Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how > often those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to > figure out which ones are actually working, and therefore should not > be marked as insignificant. I'm glad you asked. I spent some time yesterday and today d

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread shane.kearns
> Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how often > those insignificant tests actually fail? That should help to figure out > which ones are actually working, and therefore should not be marked as > insignificant. > > -- > Giuseppe D'Angelo The CI logs are publicly availabl

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo
2012/4/13 : >> > Another way tests have been disabled is using CONFIG += no_check_target > which seems to have been done when tests were initially disabled before the > insignificant_test option was added. Random question of the day: do you happen to have stats about how often those insignificant

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread jason.mcdonald
>Another way tests have been disabled is using CONFIG += no_check_target which >seems to have been done when tests were initially disabled before the >insignificant_test option was added. Actually, I think that came a little later (when the refactor branch was merged into master). That mechani

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread shane.kearns
Another way tests have been disabled is using CONFIG += no_check_target which seems to have been done when tests were initially disabled before the insignificant_test option was added. e.g. auto.pro has this: # disable 'make check' on Mac OS X for the following subdirs for the time being mac {

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-13 Thread jason.mcdonald
> I've grepped through all the modules to create a list of these insignificant > tests, and listed them below. Please note that a test marked as insignificant > in essence provides us with zero coverage, since all results from those test > cases (although run) are completely ignored. > IMO, if

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-13 Thread casper.vandonderen
On 4/13/12 10:32 AM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:42AM +, ext >casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote: >> You are correct, that is what will happen, the same as the current >>system. >> The thing is that people have difficulty understanding where >> QT_QML_QDOC

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-13 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:04:42AM +, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote: > You are correct, that is what will happen, the same as the current system. > The thing is that people have difficulty understanding where > QT_QML_QDOCCONF etc. come from currently. > > I can see a problem with th

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-13 Thread casper.vandonderen
On 4/13/12 7:34 AM, "Lincoln Ramsay" wrote: >On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote: >> But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc >> into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so >> that we don't need the depends. Because t

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread Lincoln Ramsay
On 04/13/2012 03:19 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote: > But I would be grateful if you would make a plan on how to turn qdoc > into a mini-qmake so that qdoc can parse the .pro/sync.profile, so > that we don't need the depends. Because that would probably also mean > that you have to ru

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread casper.vandonderen
Hi, > We had cross-module links in both directions. We achieved this by > running qdoc twice per module. Once to get the .index (used for > resolving links) and again to build with the other modules' .index > files. The only way to avoid doing things twice would be to have more > intermediate step

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread Lincoln Ramsay
Hi. In general I applaud this effort. I'm going to talk about some of the doc things Qtopia had. Most of this came from our (infamous for being unmaintainable) mkdocs script. Given the reputation that script had I'm not about to suggest we implement things similarly in Qt but perhaps the ideas

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread Quim Gil
On 04/11/2012 05:49 AM, ext lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > To help with this I would like to nominate Casper Vandonderen as the > maintainer for our documentation. Great! > Jason has been leading Qt (and Qtopia) > releases a couple of times in the past within both Trolltech and Nokia. He > will b

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread Robin Burchell
2012/4/12 Stephen Kelly : > I think it didn't work well. While I'm not you, and you didn't really extrapolate on why you think that, I do agree that it certainly wasn't perfect - but the times when it wasn't perfect it was mostly things that either don't apply anymore or can be improved on without

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread lars.knoll
On 4/12/12 4:09 PM, "ext Olivier Goffart" wrote: >On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:35:45 André Somers wrote: >> Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef: >> > Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of >>files >> > around and make some things impossible. >> >

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread lars.knoll
On 4/12/12 7:27 PM, "ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com" wrote: >>> There are 2 main problems with the current system: >>> 1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and >>>verifying the >>> output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last >>> December. Having the

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread lars.knoll
On 4/12/12 5:06 PM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" wrote: >On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, ext Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I'd like to see another model attempted next time, like all commits >> going to master, and a 'stable' branch which gets fast forwarded once >> a week >> >that's besides th

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread lars.knoll
On 4/12/12 3:39 PM, "ext Girish Ramakrishnan" wrote: >Hi Lars, > >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:49 AM, wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> hope many of you had the chance to take some time off over easter. I >> certainly did. >> >> Now that the alpha is out, there's work we need to do to get things in >>

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread Quim Gil
On 04/12/2012 06:12 AM, ext casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote: > To get and keep our documentation in shape for Qt 5.0 and beyond I think > we will need to tackle the following problems: > 1. The documentation is not modularized. > 2. The documentation build system is hard to explain to people.

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread casper.vandonderen
>> There are 2 main problems with the current system: >> 1. Nobody was running "make docs" on their local machines (and verifying the >> output). There are qdoc errors that were put in by developers last >> December. Having the documentation modularized will at some point >> (hopefully soon) allow

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Thursday 12 April 2012 16:30:39 casper.vandonde...@nokia.com wrote: > >> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above > >> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly. > >> > >> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links > >> tha

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread casper.vandonderen
>> While I understand the reasoning, I am not sure the limitations above >> are acceptable. At least, if I understand you correctly. >> >> I think that loosing all the cross links and all the inherited-by links >> that span modules is unaceptable. For instance, you would no longer be >> able to see

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, ext Stephen Kelly wrote: > I'd like to see another model attempted next time, like all commits > going to master, and a 'stable' branch which gets fast forwarded once > a week > that's besides the point. people must work on the bleeding edge. bic/sic chan

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 23:03:51 Robin Burchell wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote: > > We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I > > will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to > > our api back to master by the end of th

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:35:45 André Somers wrote: > Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef: > > Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files > > around and make some things impossible. > > The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread Girish Ramakrishnan
Hi Lars, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:49 AM, wrote: > Hi everybody, > > hope many of you had the chance to take some time off over easter. I > certainly did. > > Now that the alpha is out, there's work we need to do to get things in > shape for a beta. > > We are now done with new feature developme

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread André Somers
Op 12-4-2012 15:12, casper.vandonde...@nokia.com schreef: > Modularizing the documentation is a process that will move a lot of files > around and make some things impossible. > The biggest consequence will be that we will have the same dependency > chain as when compiling the modules. > E.g. not a

[Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta: Documentation

2012-04-12 Thread casper.vandonderen
Hi everybody, TL;DR: We need to change the way Qt does documentation. A lot of things will change and we need help from everybody. As mentioned by Lars: We should make sure the quality of the documentation for Qt 5.0 is as high as possible. To get and keep our documentation in shape for Qt 5.0 a

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-12 Thread jason.mcdonald
> To help with this I would like to nominate Casper Vandonderen as the > maintainer for our documentation. I've already talked to him and he's > interested and willing to take the job. This doesn't mean he is > responsible for writing or reviewing all the documentation we have, but > his role would

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-11 Thread Rohan McGovern
marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com said: > On 04/11/2012 07:49 AM, ext lars.kn...@nokia.com > wrote: > > ** insignificant tests ** > > We still have quite some tests (around 110 in total) marked as > insignificant. This means they will be ignored by the CI system. Any help

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-11 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo
On 11 April 2012 13:49, wrote: > > We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I > will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to > our api back to master by the end of this week, and close the branch after > that. What about the changes that ar

Re: [Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-11 Thread Robin Burchell
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote: > We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I > will merge the api_changes branch that contains the remaining changes to > our api back to master by the end of this week, and close the branch after > that. I wonder: you imply tha

[Development] Towards a Qt 5 beta

2012-04-11 Thread lars.knoll
Hi everybody, hope many of you had the chance to take some time off over easter. I certainly did. Now that the alpha is out, there's work we need to do to get things in shape for a beta. We are now done with new feature development and changes to our API. I will merge the api_changes branch that