On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:28 AM, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote:
Normal procedure has been that an issue gets raised in Jira, and Mark usually
takes care of it.
We can't assume that that will continue, as Mark will be leaving Nokia
soon and needs to give priority to the Brisbane site
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, d3fault d3faultdot...@gmail.com wrote:
The words stable and release are somewhat ambiguous (enough to
warrant change).
A release is implicitly stable, so the converse usually also holds
true: stable is released.
Not really. IMO, stable should be an always
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@digia.com wrote:
as some certainly noted, the completeness of dist/changes-* severely
deteriorated over the last few minor releases, and in particular 5.0.0
is one of the poorest qt changelogs seen in a while.
also, sergio
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Sergio Ahumada
sergio.ahum...@digia.com wrote:
On 01/28/2013 03:52 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Seems currently everybody could merge to staging.
I as non-approver have a merge button in gerrit.
Or is this only a new feature to see if the
request passes all
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Sergio Ahumada
sergio.ahum...@digia.com wrote:
On 01/29/2013 12:57 PM, Jason McDonald wrote:
I think there is a problem here. The announcement in the link seems
to indicate that the intention was only to present non-approvers with
a Merge patchset x
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Martin Jones
martin.jo...@qinetic.com.au wrote:
Since the Nokia Brisbane office was closed QML/QtQuick has effectively been
maintainer-less. Recently Alan has been proactive in pushing QML forward
and has been very active in the community. He also has a long
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Shaw Andy andy.s...@digia.com wrote:
Before the transition to Qt being developed in the open via open governance,
the Qt Support team back in Trolltech and later Nokia, would prioritize the
bugs that were created, or at least handled, by them. Typically these
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
Normally, one should read that page before reporting a bug:
http://qt-project.org/wiki/ReportingBugsInQt
Maybe that page should be linked from the Create Issue form.
It would also be a good idea to have a reminder on the
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Qi Liang liang...@digia.com wrote:
tests/prebuild/license in qtqa repo is just for that purpose though I am not
sure how it got run on every qt5 module repo.
http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtqa/trees/master/tests/prebuild/license
The license header checker autotest
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On terça-feira, 12 de março de 2013 13.28.37, Motyka Rafal wrote:
Hello,
I want to suggest another change for JIRA:
- A Reporter should be able to set the Priority starting from the Create
Issue window.
-
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Motyka Rafal rafal.mot...@digia.com wrote:
Hello,
I want to express another suggestions for bug management:
- A newly opened bug report shouldn't be automatically assigned to anyone.
- Logged-in users should be able to assign bug reports to themselves.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Anttila Janne janne.antt...@digia.com wrote:
Jason McDonald wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On terça-feira, 12 de março de 2013 13.28.37, Motyka Rafal wrote:
Hello,
I want to suggest another change
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.comwrote:
On segunda-feira, 4 de novembro de 2013 16:07:32, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Module is fine.
+1
--
Jason
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Li Anthony anthony...@digia.com wrote:
Hi,
Maybe this is a silly question. But I always want to know the Qt version
when I compile Qt from source code. Is there a version file or some easy
way that I can find in source code?
qglobal.h contains the
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Li Anthony anthony...@digia.com wrote:
One more question. I found my tree is still in 5.1.1. I have do git pull
in qt5 directory. How should I do to update source code to 5.2.0?
If you specifically want the released 5.2.0 code, the following should work:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Sze Howe Koh szehowe@gmail.comwrote:
The following functions/types need documenting. (This list excludes
constructors, destructors, and operators). Could those who are
familiar with these functions/types please add them?
Thanks for the info. The QTest
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Kuba Ober k...@mareimbrium.org wrote:
My only worry is that it seems like an idle exercise. Why spend all this
time doing something that, ultimately, serves no real purpose? Qt’s image
ultimately depends on the quality of the code and the documentation that
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:23:52 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:38:54 Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
Looks ok.
+1
--
Jason
___
Development
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 19:24:13 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Erk... would it be possible to resend the diff EXCLUDING the license
header changes? The Gui/Widgets header diffs are huge...
Done.
The old
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Hausmann Simon
simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com wrote:
Hi,
Lately development of testlib picked up again and I've been wondering:
the api consists of a fair amount of macros that call internal functions.
It would be convenient to change the signature of
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:39 AM Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > On 8 Jul 2019, at 16:24, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Executive summary:
> >
> > * QTest::mouseMove seems to be broken
> > * when simulating QEvent::MouseMove events by constructing event objects,
> > always construct them
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:57 PM Palaraja, Kavindra wrote:
> On 11.07.19, 05:55, "Development on behalf of Jason McDonald"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I also recall that there used to be a wiki page that listed some
> best-practices for writing unit t
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:29 PM Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
> That there is no overload that takes modifiers and keys is also strange.
>
>
> Most likely this omission is simply because nobody ever asked for such
> an overload. I'm fairly sure that that part of testlib existed before
> modifiers
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 02:09, Kai Köhne wrote:
> > Was there any outcome from this discussion? Like, re-evaluating priority
> > levels and what they mean in terms of release blockers?
>
I note that the number of open P1's has dropped from 1175 to 1063. Some of
that decline has been from genuine
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 07:47, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development <
development@qt-project.org> wrote:
> To avoid repeating myself a bit too often in code reviews, I've put
> together some notes in a QUIP (18), available here
>
Hi Giuseppe,
It seems that there is a clash in the quip numbers.
that if the tests are unused it might be
better to remove them than to spend effort fixing them.
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode)
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
sus giving up and just documenting the
breakage in the Qt5 to Qt6 porting docs?
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode)
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 05:48, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:01:13AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >On Monday, 2 November 2020 05:24:45 PST Jason McDonald wrote:
> >> There may be such a tool, but if there is it presumably isn't
> functioning
>
last version that are not edge cases; Data loss; Build issues; All but the
most unlikely crashes/lockups/hanging; Serious usability issues and
embarrassing bugs & Bugs critical to a deliverable.")
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode)
_
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 06:00, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 12:00:27AM +1000, Jason McDonald wrote:
> >Is there some obscure reason behind the duplicate resolution or is it a
> >mistake as I suspect?
> >
> certainly a mistake.
>
> note that &
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 20:11, Alex Blasche wrote:
> Turns that there is a resolution overload in Jira. For any issue that was
> not transitioned into the closed state, the system sets the resolution
> field to "Unresolved".
>
> As soon as the closure happens, the resolution field is set to one of
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 18:39, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Dienstag, 3. November 2020 05:34:02 CET Jason McDonald wrote:
> > If an issue is not important enough to get attention within a year, is it
> > really P1?
>
> But how many of those are accepted? P1 is just
right now, I have absolutely no
idea what issues are genuinely blocking Qt 6.0 or if there are any that I
could help out with. I could spend literally weeks just reading through all
the P1s to try to figure out what's really important. I would not like to
be in the shoes of whomever has to make a go/no-go
.
If there are no objections, I'm happy to invest a few hours per week to
work through reviewing these bugs. On my own, it would likely take at
least several months to get through all of them, so any additional
volunteers would be most welcome.
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 23:19, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Welcome back!
>
> > On 2 Nov 2020, at 14:11, Jason McDonald wrote:
> >
> > While reacquainting myself with the Qt Bug Tracker after a long absence,
> I noticed that there are more than 900 issues lan
lution or is it a
mistake as I suspect?
If nobody can think of a good reason for the duplicate resolution, I'm
happy to file a request for someone with Jira superpowers to (carefully)
remove it.
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode)
__
with the following Jira query:
project = QTBUG AND component in ("(Inactive) QtQuick (version
1)","(Inactive) Enginio","(Inactive) GUI: QWS Integration (Qt4)") and
status != Closed
Cheers,
--
Dr. Jason McDonald
(macadder on FreeNode)
___
On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 07:01, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
Hello Ivan. I'm sorry to hear that you're experiencing some frustration
here.
I must refrain from commenting on the specific code review that is in
dispute, as I'm not familiar with that module, but I would like to offer
obably needs to be highlighted in the release notes),
* any special status information (e.g. deliberate source- or
binary-compatibility breakage, tech-preview for which source- or
binary-compatibility promises are not being made, etc),
* related Jira tasks,
* who can answer questions if I n
39 matches
Mail list logo
