Re: [Development] Review for new widget module [your advices are needed]

2017-10-15 Thread iman ahmadvand
No one interested ? On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:03 AM, iman ahmadvand wrote: > Hi everyone. > > Before I send some code base on codereview and decide whether my > implementation meets the requirements, I just want to know your thoughts > about design decision for the new

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Christian Gagneraud
On 16 October 2017 at 15:42, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Christian Gagneraud wrote: >> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way. >> You're all wrong." >> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no >> comparison, no argument

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Christian Gagneraud wrote: > I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way. > You're all wrong." > This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no > comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing. It makes one important point (and elaborates it to great

Re: [Development] How to get Qt_5.9.1_PRIVATE_API

2017-10-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Thiago Macieira wrote: > The point of the ELF version was to help you the distributions detect > which ones need rebuilding by having the symbol show up. Having the symbol > rename all the time doesn't make the distro-building more robust, since > the previous symbols would just disappear and new

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 02:20:13 PDT Christian Gagneraud wrote: > How many people had the same reaction when clang started? > Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling > like we would never have dared to dream of . Clang may be far superior to GCC in a lot of aspects.

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 03:23:57 PDT Jake Petroules wrote: > We've already decided internally that we want to push Qbs as the new build > tool, and I have no doubt that the community will agree. I have no doubt the community agrees that you have the right to try. Whether the community agrees

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Jake Petroules
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Ben Lau wrote: > > > On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov wrote: > Hi all, my 5-cents: > > QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. :) > > > I am still new to QBS, but I

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Ben Lau
On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov wrote: > Hi all, my 5-cents: > > QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. > :) > > I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I think it has missed a critical

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Christian Gagneraud
On 15 October 2017 at 23:23, Jake Petroules wrote: > > >> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: >> >> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier >> wrote: nobody is going to port Qt to CMake

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Jake Petroules
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier > wrote: >>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread) >> >>

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

2017-10-15 Thread Christian Gagneraud
On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote: >> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread) > > https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8 I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way. You're