On Wednesday 07 September 2016 10:26:44 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> The reason we should limit the changes to critical change is so than
>> "jumping through hoops" gets easier. Every patch we put there instead
>> of in a upper branch makes more work of merging, handling regressions
>> causing by this
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Stottlemyer,
> Brett (B.S.)
> Sent: keskiviikkona 7. syyskuuta 2016 14.56
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Which cha
On 9/7/16, 4:26 AM, "Development on behalf of Olivier Goffart"
wrote:
>But in the end, we want our users to upgrade. So they
>can reconsider the reason they cannot upgrade while weighing the new features/
>bugfixes in the equation.
Maybe I’m being overly sensitive. Having worked in aerospace
On Wednesday 07 September 2016 10:26:44 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. August 2016 10:48:27 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 August 2016 10:06:09 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 12. August 2016 09:02:08 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > I agree with Marc,
On Dienstag, 16. August 2016 10:48:27 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 August 2016 10:06:09 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > On Freitag, 12. August 2016 09:02:08 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > I agree with Marc, we should allow fixing bugs besides those that are
> > > critical or regre
On fredag 12. august 2016 10.52.52 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to know what the rules are supposed to for submitting to 5.6 (LTS).
>
> Should we enforce the strict rules of other minor releases (only regressions
> and P2+)?
I strongly believe that autotests improvements should go to
On Tuesday 16 August 2016 10:06:09 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Freitag, 12. August 2016 09:02:08 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
[...]
> > I agree with Marc, we should allow fixing bugs besides those that are
> > critical or regressions. Even the regression category will change: once
> > 5.6 is a year
On Freitag, 12. August 2016 09:02:08 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2016 14:00:10 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Well, we told people "look, Qt 5.7 will drop support for your platform,
> > and
> > require C++11, but don't worry: you have 5.6 LTS". I doubt those people
> > w
On sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016 20:30:39 PDT Gunnar Roth wrote:
> >> b. adding EditorFont to qplatformtheme.h enumeration ,has also no risk.
> >
> > Not allowed per Qt API compatibility promise: code compiled with Qt 5.6.x
> > must run just fine with Qt 5.6.y even if y < x.
>
> Well thats someth
Hi Thiago,
thanks for you answers.
> Am 13.08.2016 um 20:05 schrieb Thiago Macieira :
>
> On sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016 18:08:16 PDT Gunnar Roth wrote:
>> 1. category is just adding code, which does not influence current
>> code.
>> a. adding qAsConst in qgolbal.h. That is actually something i
On sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016 18:08:16 PDT Gunnar Roth wrote:
> 1. category is just adding code, which does not influence current
> code.
> a. adding qAsConst in qgolbal.h. That is actually something i really
> like to have in qt 5.6, because it is very useful and has no risk.
Except that it's
Hi Thiago,
to make qt 5.6.x support the quick controls2 there are only a few changes
needed.
1. category is just adding code, which does not influence current code.
a. adding qAsConst in qgolbal.h. That is actually something i really like
to have in qt 5.6, because it is very useful and has
On sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2016 14:03:24 PDT Gunnar Roth wrote:
> Does a request of having qtquickcontrols2 and qtvirtualkeyboard 2.1
> backported to 5.6. x have chance? Actually I managed to do this myself, but
> an upstream solutuion is preferrable. The problem is that some important OS
> i
On sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2016 14:00:10 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> Well, we told people "look, Qt 5.7 will drop support for your platform, and
> require C++11, but don't worry: you have 5.6 LTS". I doubt those people
> would be happy if they didn't get their bugs fixed because they don't
> invol
: Freitag, 12. August 2016 um 13:18 Uhr
Von: "Lars Knoll"
An: "Olivier Goffart"
Cc: "Qt development mailing list"
Betreff: Re: [Development] Which changes are suitable for 5.6?
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 12:01, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>
> On Freitag, 12. August 20
On Friday 12 August 2016 13:18:52 Lars Knoll wrote:
> > On 12 Aug 2016, at 12:01, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Freitag, 12. August 2016 10:52:52 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to know what the rules are supposed to for submitting to 5.6
> >> (LTS).
> >>
> >>
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 12:01, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>
> On Freitag, 12. August 2016 10:52:52 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know what the rules are supposed to for submitting to 5.6 (LTS).
>>
>> Should we enforce the strict rules of other minor releases (only regressions
>> and
On Freitag, 12. August 2016 10:52:52 CEST Marc Mutz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to know what the rules are supposed to for submitting to 5.6 (LTS).
>
> Should we enforce the strict rules of other minor releases (only regressions
> and P2+)?
>
> IMHO, 5.6 is not like 5.5. So with another 2+ years o
Hi,
I'd like to know what the rules are supposed to for submitting to 5.6 (LTS).
Should we enforce the strict rules of other minor releases (only regressions
and P2+)?
IMHO, 5.6 is not like 5.5. So with another 2+ years of 5.6 lifetime, more
relaxed rules should apply.
I'd like all bug-fixes
19 matches
Mail list logo