On 1/18/12 2:21 PM, lars.kn...@nokia.com lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
We need to avoid the problem of printf / scanf that use different decimal
conventions depending on the user locale. That means the naive
implementation
will be unable to parse the data it generated under a different locale
On 1/19/12 4:15 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 de January de 2012 21.24.36, Shaw Andy wrote:
For what it is worth I also agree that it should be changed, having
recently having to deal with the QDoubleValidator problem when it came
to
this became
[snip]
The warning needs to go away, at least, provided that Qt *is* tested on
Windows 8. Whether we add the enum or not, that's a bit orthogonal.
Yes, the warning needs to be fixed.
But I don't have any problems with adding the new enum in a patch level
release. The only thing it can
On domingo, 9 de setembro de 2012 13.25.29, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
The solution for a bug can never be to wilfully break existing applications!
What can I as an application developer depend on if that's deemed
acceptable? Yeah, we had a feature, and yeah, people depend on it, but
we
On 10 September 2012 12:58, Shaw Andy andy.s...@digia.com wrote:
To clarify, I did the patch that everyone is referring to, I actually did
it in my
Nokia days when I had access to the tablet and passed it on to someone after
I joined Digia. It is a hack because I had to try and get
26.09.2012, в 14:15, Konstantin Tokarev annu...@yandex.ru написал(а):
26.09.2012, 11:09, Иван Комиссаров abba...@gmail.com:
I would like to ask a question - what's with Qt Jira? Does any people
really
look at it and fix bugs? For the past 2 years, situation get worse and worse -
3-4
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Chu [mailto:step...@ju-ju.com]
Sent: 26. september 2012 15:55
To: Shaw Andy
Cc: Иван Комиссаров; Konstantin Tokarev; development
Subject: Re: [Development] What's with bugreports.qt-project.org?
On 9/26/12 6:44 AM, Shaw Andy wrote:
I am just
On Oct 15, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Mark Brand mabr...@mabrand.nl
wrote:
João Abecasis wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to nominate Andy Shaw for Approver status. Andy's history
with Qt is longer than my own, having catered to commercial customers
in Trolltech, Nokia and Digia. Looking over the main
looks like there's quite some discussion about Thiago's proposal. Let's see if
we can get at least agreement on most of the changes and then focus on the
parts that are controversial.
Going through the list below, most of the changes will not affect anybody in a
big way.
On Oct 18,
-Original Message-
From: development-bounces+andy.shaw=digia@qt-project.org
[mailto:development-bounces+andy.shaw=digia@qt-project.org] On
Behalf Of Marc Mutz
Sent: 9. desember 2012 14:23
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] RFC: What constitutes a
As I was investigating a different problem I came across a bigger issue
regarding ICU on Windows. The problem is that when ICU is linked against on
Windows it links against the same copy of the library even if it is building
for release which causes a problem with C runtime libraries on
On sexta-feira, 11 de janeiro de 2013 13.32.35, Shaw Andy wrote:
Unfortunately this is what is happening now if ICU is linked in, ICU will
always use the release version so if Qt is built in debug mode then it will
end up mixing the C runtime libraries.
Either way I feel
[...]
Microsoft in the past has also said that you should keep the -MD(d)/-MT(d)
setting consistent so it is the same across all libraries and applications,
[...]
Which is cool, if you can manage it. But it's far from what happens in the
real world.
In the real world you have
To get things back on track, I think we have a case for either way saying that
we could ignore it as since as long as it's done the correct way then it should
be fine. But there is also a case for doing the right thing as far as what is
recommended by Microsoft in this case especially since we
On 17/01/13 14:51, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/4.8/qsettings.html is instead
recreated nightly or so, so you'll see the note added in that commit.
Aha! Ok... How should one know that the docs on
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/ are from 4.8.4? In the older
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:40:23 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:14:03AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013 15.33.59, Knoll Lars wrote:
Finally reading up on some old emails…
I'd say we add the virtual destructors.
5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
haven't seen activity for a long time a honest look.
please explicitly mark the ones you still
Op 30-1-2013 19:34, Robin Burchell schreef:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Sergio Ahumada
s...@sansano.inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
How many changes do you need to close a jira task ? one, two, more, who
knows ?
The person submitting the change.
The way I've seen this done various other
Hi,
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 would be
bugs that were brought to our attention by commercial
[snip]
What I would like to suggest that we do now is bring back this practice, so
that the Qt Support team will set a priority on the bugs that it creates or
handles, so that it makes things easier for the maintainers to actually see
what issues are potentially a higher priority than the
Merge from stable to release branch is now done.
Changes that are intended to get in for Qt 5.0.2 need to be pushed into
release branch.
Now that the merge has done, doesn't this in effect mean that stable is now in
reality Qt 5.1.0 based as dev will be merged to stable on 15th March? If that
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 would
be bugs that were brought to our attention by commercial
I would expect that the workflow is that if a report is set to be In progress
then this is the indication that someone is actually working on the report, if
we start using the assigner for this indication then it sounds like it will
complicate matters even further. Also, if a P1 is created and
Making of Qt 5.1 minor release will soon start:
- Plan is to move 'dev' into 'stable' branch on March 19th.
- After March 19th any changes that are required to get in for 5.1
need to be pushed into 'stable' branch. So if your needed changes don't
make it today,
please wait after the
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31:17AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Can we please agree on cleaning the dashboards up? Or, if we've
agreed, can we do it?
i think there was consensus to do it.
however, it depends on
https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTQAINFRA-598 to find
acceptance,
The file dialog takes up to 30 seconds to be usable if we're listing
files on a USB or remote share with 10k files.
The bottlenecks are QFileIconProvider::icon(const QFileInfo info) and
QFileInfo::isSymLink().
I solved the icon problem by looking them up in the registry, by
I know the background for this pretty well since I was involved with the
original transfer of the solution code from TT to Nokia. Basically the code was
not transferred to Digia at all and it was not initially made publically
available either when the code was released under the BSD license
That doesn't make it a valid thing to still do, testing or not. I am not sure
what others think but do we want to still do upgrades to things on CI this late
into a release process?
Andy
From: Sarajärvi Tony
Sent: 22. mai 2013 10:54
To: Shaw Andy; development@qt-project.org
Subject: RE: Builds
a generally more safer
time. As such now the merge from stable to release as to wait because of the CI
trouble, which puts more pressure on the actual schedule.
Andy
From: Sarajärvi Tony
Sent: 22. mai 2013 11:45
To: Shaw Andy; development@qt-project.org
Subject: RE: Builds failing due to android host
I looked into the desired workflow changes for Jira (as discussed on this
list)
and am doing some general cleanups which I would like to bring up at this
point. The more invasive bulk changes will happen on Monday while others
have already happened. Please note that this may temporarily
IIRC it wasn't even compiled into the QtWidgets library, although the
documentation and everything existed, those symbols were never in Qt. Morten
can say 100% at least but that is my understanding and recollection at least.
Andy
From: development-bounces+andy.shaw=digia@qt-project.org
FWIW, Browser stats fun:
Bar chart last 30 days:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201312-201312-bar
(Windows XP still has 18.52%)
Trend chart:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200808-201311
Of course - it's declining. The decline seems actually to flatten out.
I think
I’ve now gone through all changes. The set looks pretty good overall, and
testing on Linux showed no regressions compared to 5.2.
One correction here: The paperRect as shown in the preview of the dialogs
manual test shows some slightly different results, that look like a
rounding issue. Not
I’ve now gone through all changes. The set looks pretty good overall, and
testing on Linux showed no regressions compared to 5.2.
One correction here: The paperRect as shown in the preview of the dialogs
manual test shows some slightly different results, that look like a
rounding
* Keep the patches switching to the new platform plugin code in reserve to
either switch for 5.3 if testing proves the plugin is stable enough, or more
likely to use in 5.4 if not.
I like this idea at least, because this enables the reviews to keep going and
we can keep testing until we are
Hi,
I was looking at a problem regarding deferred deletes causing a crash inside
nested loops and it was pointed out that in QCoreApplication::setPostedEvents()
there is some code there that determines whether it is safe to delete the
object or not. From my understanding it will only delete an
I was looking at a problem regarding deferred deletes causing a crash inside
nested loops and it was pointed out that in
QCoreApplication::setPostedEvents() there is some code there that
determines whether it is safe to delete the object or not. From my
understanding it will only delete
I was informed earlier in the week that it was known and being investigated,
there was a problem with the Mac OS X 10.6 machine but I was also under the
impression that it would be fixed already by now so I don't know what is
happening with it at the moment.
Andy
From:
Em ter 11 mar 2014, às 17:17:46, Andre Somers escreveu:
I seriously don't see the benefit of this harmonization. When I look
at the docs for a class, I often just look for method names that seem to
do what I need. That usually works very with Qt. Now, I will need to go
check for every
Gerrit seems to reject some of my changes with this error:
$ git push ssh://mandri...@codereview.qt-project.org/qt/qt HEAD:refs/for/4.8
error: error: invalid protocol: wanted 'old new ref'
fatal: internal server error
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Counting objects:
Em qua 26 mar 2014, às 08:21:20, Alan Ezust escreveu:
Does anyone understand what the difference is between a qt that is
configured like this: ./configure -developer-build versus a Qt that is
configured like this: configure -developer-build --prefix=$PWD/qtbase
according to
I am porting an application to Qt5/KF5 and was surprised to see the
main widget of the application was showing all black. There are
screenshots of the original version and the buggy version[1] online. I
removed
setAttribute( Qt::WA_PaintOnScreen, true );
on that widget and the
As the subject says, ok to do it?
Note that this does *NOT* apply to wince60*-msvc2005 mkspecs.
If there are no objections, we'll do it in one week.
I think it is certainly safe to remove it, it hasn't been supported in a long
time and I doubt it even works.
Andy
What are the chances that such a change can be accepted ? (i mean, i can
submit such a patch, but that would mean breaking a *lot* of code).
QOptional does not exist yet and for very good reasons.
QVariant is already in use, so I don't think you'd be sending a patch to use
There is QPdfWriter at least which is a paint device, so you could use that for
generating PDFs as that is available iOS from what I can see.
Andy
From: Development [mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
Edward Sutton
Sent: 3. desember 2015 15:09
To: Mark De Wit
Cc:
. If this is not
happening then please report it as it should be handled correctly in that
instance.
Andy
From: Edward Sutton [mailto:edward.sut...@subsite.com]
Sent: 4. desember 2015 15:07
To: Mark De Wit
Cc: Shaw Andy; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Please do not remove
I was creating another bug report earlier today in JIRA and I noticed that it
was assigning to someone who didn't seem to be right for the component at all
since I don't believe they are the maintainer for it and I recalled that this
is not the first time I've noticed that the auto-assigner is
47 matches
Mail list logo
