Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Aleksey Kontsevich]

Kevin, it is not spyware : Code and docs are open so you can examine it.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich



18.01.2019, 04:26, "Kevin Kofler" :
> Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>  Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
>>  
>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summary
>>  ?
>
> One discussion point that I miss here is whether spyware tooling should ever
> become a Qt component in the first place, independently of the outcome of
> the code and API reviews.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:23:53 PST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> One discussion point that I miss here is whether spyware tooling should ever
> become a Qt component in the first place, independently of the outcome of
> the code and API reviews.

The difference between spyware and legitimate telemetry is the use it's put on 
and that can be said of almost all technology too. An opt-in solution, with a 
link to a good privacy policy probably doesn't count as spyware. The Clear 
Linux installer, for example, asks you if you want to turn telemetry on, but 
the checkbox is unchecked by default.[1]

And if Qt Creator as built by The Qt Company ever builds in telemetry support, 
remember the The Qt Company is subject to the GPDR.

[1] if you turn telemetry on, the system will send our team anonymised crash 
backtraces, for example. Weekly, we review the crashes reported and see if we 
can fix it. I'm already fed up with seeing g_variant_* stuff crashing...
-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Kevin Kofler]

Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
> Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summary
> ?

One discussion point that I miss here is whether spyware tooling should ever
become a Qt component in the first place, independently of the outcome of
the code and API reviews.

Kevin Kofler

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 13:27:40 PST Martin Koller wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 16. Jänner 2019 19:44:27 CET Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > From QtWebKit perpective it would be great if Qt APIs which require
> > QString now would also accept QLatin1String at least for ASCII-only data
> is QtWebKit still alive ?
> Seems there is nobody working on it since more than a year...

Konstantin is the maintainer, but I haven't seen releases recently, so it's 
not something I could recommend depending on.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

[Martin Koller]

On Mittwoch, 16. Jänner 2019 19:44:27 CET Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

> From QtWebKit perpective it would be great if Qt APIs which require QString 
> now would also accept QLatin1String at least for ASCII-only data

is QtWebKit still alive ?
Seems there is nobody working on it since more than a year...

-- 
Best regards/Schöne Grüße

Martin
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q: Why is top posting bad?

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\- against proprietary attachments

Geschenkideen, Accessoires, Seifen, Kulinarisches: www.lillehus.at


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:43:19 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> Well it’s a pretty comprehensive solution including client components,
> agents and probes etc
> 
> https://prometheus.io
> 
> Database and query language etc are a significant part of it, and from my
> experience one of the more operable systems in that space. Which matters a
> lot.

Nice, a CNCF project.

> But system monitoring, probing and reporting/responding is a part of every
> config management tool out there. I wonder what was missing in that space
> to kick off a new thing.

I don't know for sure. The team was already working on the tool when I joined 
it last year. I've never needed to look into their reasons or their 
competitors.

I think it shows I wasn't prepared for a discussion on telemetry. This 
module's existence came as a complete surprise.

So no, it's nowhere near ready even for experimental release in 5.13.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Volker Hilsheimer]

Well it’s a pretty comprehensive solution including client components, agents 
and probes etc

https://prometheus.io

Database and query language etc are a significant part of it, and from my 
experience one of the more operable systems in that space. Which matters a lot.

But system monitoring, probing and reporting/responding is a part of every 
config management tool out there. I wonder what was missing in that space to 
kick off a new thing.

Volker

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Development  on behalf of Thiago 
Macieira 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 17:48
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 08:33:23 PST Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:23, Thiago Macieira 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I have no idea what Prometheus is.
>
> Another time-series database in the same category as InfluxDB.

This sounds like a server-side tool.

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 08:33:23 PST Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:23, Thiago Macieira 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > I have no idea what Prometheus is.
> 
> Another time-series database in the same category as InfluxDB.

This sounds like a server-side tool.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Shawn Rutledge]

> On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:23, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
> 
> I have no idea what Prometheus is.

Another time-series database in the same category as InfluxDB.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 06:11:13 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
> to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are really API *change*
> reviews.  Without a prior release to compare against, the tool for that
> doesn't know how to report anything.  You need an actual review of the
> whole API, not just some recent changes to it.

Hi Eddy

You're confusing the ABI binary compatibility check with the API review. API 
reviews do indeed review whole new APIs. Just look at the Calendar System API.

But for full new APIs, the BC check tool does not make sense. Especially for 
new modules, this is a much larger discussion than a diff review.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 00:23:56 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> The proposed Qt Telemetry module focues on measuring usage of Qt
> applications. How long do end users run an app, what functionality do they
> use, etc. It’s not trying to address host or system observability, which is
> anyway a fairly crowded space already.

Understood. Well, *now* I understand it, because I had no idea until your 
email waht the module was about.

In any case, from your description, it seems like the qttelemetry module could 
use telemd as a backend to send the telemetry back to a central server.

> From a cursory look at your project, I’m curious what it does that
> configuration management systems like cfengine/puppet/chef, or dedicated
> time-series and monitoring systems like Prometheus don't do, or in what way
> you found e.g Prometheus lacking.

I have no idea what Prometheus is.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Volker Hilsheimer]

FWIW, since I +2’ed the "Initial QtTelemetry commit for review” - that was a +2 
in the context of “this can go into a playground repository, and more work will 
follow to implement missing functionality, add documentation, support building 
in namespaces etc”. This is in the spirit of making small steps forward, rather 
than for waiting for the single perfect commit.

A +2 to get a commit accepted into a playground repo does - hopefully obviously 
- not mean that there are “no concerns about code quality”, or that the code is 
otherwise ready for prime-time.


Volker



> On 17 Jan 2019, at 13:03, Aleksey Kontsevich  wrote:
> 
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
> 
> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
> conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Aleksey
> Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
> 
> 
> 
> 17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
>> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part 
>> of Qt or not, no?
>> 
>> We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
>> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>> 
>> “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
>> technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
>> Maintainer.”
>> 
>> To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
>> request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>> 
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
>> 
>> Maurice
>> 
>> From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars 
>> Knoll
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
>> To: Thiago Macieira 
>> Cc: Qt development mailing list 
>> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>> 
>>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>> 
 In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
 https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
 both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>> 
>>> Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough 
>>> time
>>> to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>> 
>> As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
>> supported module.
>> 
>>> In particular, I want to
>>> take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working 
>>> on:
>>>  https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>> 
>> Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>> 
>>> So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>>> experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>> 
>> See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Lars
>> 
>> ,
>> 
>> ___
>> Development mailing list
>> Development@qt-project.org
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Edward Welbourne]

Paul Tvete (17 January 2019 15:33)
> I'm taking the opportunity to yet again point out that the term "API review"
> has a long history inside and outside of the Qt Project, and we need another
> name for the just-before-release check. This misunderstanding shows that the
> risk of miscommunication is not merely theoretical.

Indeed.  How does "API change review" sound to you ?
https://codereview.qt-project.org/250241

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Paul Tvete]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:11:13 CET Edward Welbourne wrote:
>Tuukka Turunen (17 January 2019 15:00)
>> I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool 

> As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
> to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are really API *change*
> reviews.

I suspect that Tuukka did mean an actual code review, and not the header-diff-
sanity-check, but he can speak for himself. 

I'm taking the opportunity to yet again point out that the term "API review" 
has a long history inside and outside of the Qt Project, and we need another 
name for the just-before-release check. This misunderstanding shows that the 
risk of miscommunication is not merely theoretical.

- Paul (aka. Cato the Elder)


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

Yes, I was thinking that we could use a slightly similar approach for the new 
modules as we do for the API change reviews (to the extent applicable, 
considering we do not have anything to automatically compare to etc). That 
said, we may be too close to Qt 5.13 feature freeze to fully do that for all 
the candidate new modules before FF. Perhaps the most viable approach would be 
to do the review fixes before Beta 1 release - and in case not adequately fixed 
to be a technology preview, drop it out before the Beta 1. We should also 
decide what is the policy we use for Qt 5.14 onwards regarding timing of API 
reviews and add to https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5_Feature_Freeze.  

Yours,

Tuukka

On 17/01/2019, 16.11, "Edward Welbourne"  wrote:

Tuukka Turunen (17 January 2019 15:00)
> I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as
> mailing lists are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the
> API review we can then decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt
> 5.13 as TP or not. For the existing modules we do the API review a bit
> later,

As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are really API *change*
reviews.  Without a prior release to compare against, the tool for that
doesn't know how to report anything.  You need an actual review of the
whole API, not just some recent changes to it.

> but for the proposed new modules we could well do it already now - if
> not recently completed.

I don't know of an established process for API review (that reviews the
whole of an API, not just what's lately changed).  We surely need one
(and it might not hurt to do them to old existing APIs, also, from time
to time), in particular for use when considering a new module.

Eddy.


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Edward Welbourne]

Tuukka Turunen (17 January 2019 15:00)
> I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as
> mailing lists are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the
> API review we can then decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt
> 5.13 as TP or not. For the existing modules we do the API review a bit
> later,

As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are really API *change*
reviews.  Without a prior release to compare against, the tool for that
doesn't know how to report anything.  You need an actual review of the
whole API, not just some recent changes to it.

> but for the proposed new modules we could well do it already now - if
> not recently completed.

I don't know of an established process for API review (that reviews the
whole of an API, not just what's lately changed).  We surely need one
(and it might not hurt to do them to old existing APIs, also, from time
to time), in particular for use when considering a new module.

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as mailing lists 
are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the API review we can then 
decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt 5.13 as TP or not. For the 
existing modules we do the API review a bit later, but for the proposed new 
modules we could well do it already now - if not recently completed.

Yours,

Tuukka

On 17/01/2019, 15.28, "Development on behalf of Christian Stenger" 
 wrote:

Nope, I'm talking about the module.. But inside the plugin review I try to 
limit my criticism to the QC part as there are more competent developer to tell 
you how to do the stuff correctly inside a Qt module.

But even I see lots of stuff there that is a plain mess and should not be a 
part of Qt in its current state.



From: Aleksey Kontsevich 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:07:19 PM
To: Christian Stenger; Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok 
now. And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic 
(there was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit 
keyword for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc.

--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich


17.01.2019, 14:19, "Christian Stenger" :
>> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code 
styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do
>
> You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not 
ready for more than a playground.
>
> 
> From: Development  on behalf of 
Aleksey Kontsevich 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
> To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
> Cc: Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and 
missing actions to fix these.
>
> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code 
styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksey
> Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
>
> 17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
>>  Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be 
part of Qt or not, no?
>>
>>  We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>>
>>  “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
Maintainer.”
>>
>>  To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a 
repository request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>>
>>  That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and 
missing actions to fix these.
>>
>>  Maurice
>>
>>  From: Development  On Behalf Of 
Lars Knoll
>>  Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
>>  To: Thiago Macieira 
>>  Cc: Qt development mailing list 
>>  Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>>
>>>  On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  
wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>>
  In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
  https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially 
for
  both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>>
>>>  Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find 
enough time
>>>  to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>>
>>  As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
supported module.
>>
>>>  In particular, I want to
>>>  take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is 
working on:
>>>   
https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>>
>>  Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>>
>>>  So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>>>  experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by 
others.
>>
>>  See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Lars
>>
>>  ,
>>
>>  ___
>>  Development mailing list
>>  Development@qt-project.org
>>  

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Christian Stenger]

Nope, I'm talking about the module.. But inside the plugin review I try to 
limit my criticism to the QC part as there are more competent developer to tell 
you how to do the stuff correctly inside a Qt module.

But even I see lots of stuff there that is a plain mess and should not be a 
part of Qt in its current state.



From: Aleksey Kontsevich 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:07:19 PM
To: Christian Stenger; Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok now. 
And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic (there 
was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit keyword 
for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc.

--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich


17.01.2019, 14:19, "Christian Stenger" :
>> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code 
>> styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do
>
> You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not ready 
> for more than a playground.
>
> 
> From: Development  on behalf of Aleksey 
> Kontsevich 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
> To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
> Cc: Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
>
> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
> conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksey
> Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
>
> 17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
>>  Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be 
>> part of Qt or not, no?
>>
>>  We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
>> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>>
>>  “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
>> technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
>> Maintainer.”
>>
>>  To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
>> request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>>
>>  That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
>>
>>  Maurice
>>
>>  From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars 
>> Knoll
>>  Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
>>  To: Thiago Macieira 
>>  Cc: Qt development mailing list 
>>  Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>>
>>>  On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>>
  In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
  https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
  both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>>
>>>  Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough 
>>> time
>>>  to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>>
>>  As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
>> supported module.
>>
>>>  In particular, I want to
>>>  take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working 
>>> on:
>>>   https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>>
>>  Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>>
>>>  So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>>>  experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>>
>>  See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Lars
>>
>>  ,
>>
>>  ___
>>  Development mailing list
>>  Development@qt-project.org
>>  https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] Good idea to update Windows 10 to 1809 - Redstone 5?

[Tony Sarajärvi]

Hi

We have this thing that we like to try to update things to the latest. But 
regarding Windows 10 I was told we shouldn't perhaps do that, because Qt's code 
will select and different path depending on the API levels available from 
Windows.

Does this community want to have their say and give thumbs up or down?

https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-2255

-Tony
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Aleksey Kontsevich]

Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok now. 
And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic (there 
was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit keyword 
for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc. 

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich


17.01.2019, 14:19, "Christian Stenger" :
>> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code 
>> styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do
>
> You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not ready 
> for more than a playground.
>
> 
> From: Development  on behalf of Aleksey 
> Kontsevich 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
> To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
> Cc: Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
>
> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
> conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksey
> Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
>
> 17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
>>  Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be 
>> part of Qt or not, no?
>>
>>  We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
>> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>>
>>  “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
>> technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
>> Maintainer.”
>>
>>  To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
>> request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>>
>>  That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>> actions to fix these.
>>
>>  Maurice
>>
>>  From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars 
>> Knoll
>>  Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
>>  To: Thiago Macieira 
>>  Cc: Qt development mailing list 
>>  Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>>
>>>  On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>>
  In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
  https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
  both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>>
>>>  Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough 
>>> time
>>>  to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>>
>>  As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
>> supported module.
>>
>>>  In particular, I want to
>>>  take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working 
>>> on:
>>>   https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>>
>>  Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>>
>>>  So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>>>  experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>>
>>  See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Lars
>>
>>  ,
>>
>>  ___
>>  Development mailing list
>>  Development@qt-project.org
>>  https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] [Announce] Qt Creator 4.8.1 released

[List for announcements regarding Qt releases and development]

We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 4.8.1!

https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/01/17/qt-creator-4-8-1-released/

Br,
-- 
Eike Ziller
Principal Software Engineer

The Qt Company GmbH
Rudower Chaussee 13
D-12489 Berlin
eike.zil...@qt.io
http://qt.io
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 
144331 B

___
Announce mailing list
annou...@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/announce
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Christian Stenger]

>There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
>conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do

You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not ready 
for more than a playground.


From: Development  on behalf of Aleksey 
Kontsevich 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

>That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>actions to fix these.

There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.

--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich



17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part 
> of Qt or not, no?
>
> We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>
> “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
> technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
> Maintainer.”
>
> To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
> request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>
> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
> actions to fix these.
>
> Maurice
>
> From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars Knoll
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
> To: Thiago Macieira 
> Cc: Qt development mailing list 
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>
>>> In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
>>> both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>
>> Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough time
>> to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>
> As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
> supported module.
>
>> In particular, I want to
>> take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working on:
>>  https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>
> Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>
>> So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>> experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>
> See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lars
>
> ,
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Edward Welbourne]

Maurice Kalinowski (17 January 2019 09:18)
> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should
> be part of Qt or not, no?

Sounds sensible.

> We are lacking documentation on the process here,

Indeed.

> all I could find was
> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.

Thanks for the link.
There's also the beginnings of a QUIP:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/246320
but I have too little information on the existing process ...

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Aleksey Kontsevich]

>That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
>actions to fix these.

There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles 
conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich



17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" :
> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part 
> of Qt or not, no?
>
> We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>
> “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
> technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
> Maintainer.”
>
> To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
> request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>
> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
> actions to fix these.
>
> Maurice
>
> From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars Knoll
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
> To: Thiago Macieira 
> Cc: Qt development mailing list 
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>
>>> In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
>>> both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>
>> Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough time
>> to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>
> As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
> supported module.
>
>> In particular, I want to
>> take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working on:
>>  https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>
> Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>
>> So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>> experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>
> See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lars
>
> ,
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] Coin production update

[Aapo Keskimölö]

Hi all,

Coin production was updated at Thu Jan 17 11:33:19 UTC 2019.

https://testresults.qt.io/ci/aakeskim/production_updates/HEAD
https://testresults.qt.io/ci/aakeskim/production_updates/changelog_20190117.log

Ystävällisin terveisin / Kind regards,

Aapo Keskimölö | Senior Software Engineer | Coin Software Lead
aapo.keskim...@qt.io | +358 44 559 
2378


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Volker Hilsheimer]

On 16 Jan 2019, at 22:30, Thiago Macieira 
mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 11:56:20 PST Lars Knoll wrote:
In particular, I want to
take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working
on:
https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about

Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?

Because both have "telemetry" in the name.


Hey Thiago,


The proposed Qt Telemetry module focues on measuring usage of Qt applications. 
How long do end users run an app, what functionality do they use, etc. It’s not 
trying to address host or system observability, which is anyway a fairly 
crowded space already.

From a cursory look at your project, I’m curious what it does that 
configuration management systems like cfengine/puppet/chef, or dedicated 
time-series and monitoring systems like Prometheus don't do, or in what way you 
found e.g Prometheus lacking.

Cheers,
Volker


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Maurice Kalinowski]

Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part of 
Qt or not, no?

We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was 
https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.

“This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the 
technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief 
Maintainer.”

To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository 
request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.

That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing 
actions to fix these.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Lars Knoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
To: Thiago Macieira 
Cc: Qt development mailing list 
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira 
mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:

In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.

Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough time
to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.

As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully 
supported module.


In particular, I want to
take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working on:
 https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about

Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?


So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.

See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.

Cheers,
Lars

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development