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:
>>
>>
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
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
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
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:
> >
> >
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 -
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
m: 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
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 ab
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 ab
_
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 th
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
>
t; 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 P
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:
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
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
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 -
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
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.
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
16.01.2019, 19:28, "Thiago
On Monday, 14 January 2019 09:50:23 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
> Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summ
> ary ?
When did this become a Qt module?
The only email with "telemetry" in the past 10 months was a
5.13.0.
Yours,
Tuukka
Lähettäjä: Development käyttäjän Oliver
Wolff puolesta
Lähetetty: keskiviikkona, tammikuuta 16, 2019 8:56 ap.
Vastaanottaja: Aleksey Kontsevich; development@qt-project.org
Aihe: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
On 15/01/2019 16:42, Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>> There were lots of comments about coding style and the generic approach
>
> That were fixed.
The inline comments might have been fixed, but there was quite some
disagreement about the patch's status after it was merged. That's
reflected by the
>There were lots of comments about coding style and the generic approach
That were fixed.
>Additionally no API review has taken place yet.
That was not done - true.
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
15.01.2019, 09:55, "Oliver Wolff" :
> Hi
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-2556
- Jani
From: Development on behalf of Thiago
Macieira
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:23 PM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
On Monday, 14
Hi Aleksey,
On 14/01/2019 18:50, Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summary
> ?
If I remember correctly, there was quite a large amount of comments
about the initial patch.
Hi,
Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summary
?
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
14.01.2019, 13:01, "Jani Heikkinen" :
> Hi all,
>
> There is only a bit more
On Monday, 14 January 2019 02:57:03 PST Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is only a bit more than two week to Qt 5.13 feature freeze, see
> https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.13_Release. At this point we should already know if
> there will be some new submodules in Qt 5.13 so please get possible new
Hi all,
There is only a bit more than two week to Qt 5.13 feature freeze, see
https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.13_Release. At this point we should already know if
there will be some new submodules in Qt 5.13 so please get possible new
submodule in qt5 as soon as possible; those really needs to be in
35 matches
Mail list logo
