Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 08:54:05 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: > And it formalizes the way we can discuss and comment on things, as QUIPs > would be reviewed in codereview, then approved there. I believe it’ll lead > to a better workflow and better decision making in the project than >

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

Really? Shouldn't be better to just announce a proposal on the mailing list and then shift the discussion and feedbacks on the codereview? 2016-09-20 18:46 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira : > On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 08:54:05 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: >> And it

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 11:29:32 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote: > > Is such a behavior change really acceptable for 5.8? I think it can break > > applications that were relying on the current behavior in pretty bad, hard > > to debug ways (random bugs based on rounding errors). > > I

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 09:02:11 PDT André Somers wrote: > So, could you please explain, preferably without relying on all the > acronyms, what problems this bureaucratization effort is trying to > resolve, and how it fits the rest of our work flow (like making feature > requests in

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

Hi, Thanks for posting this, it finally cleared up a few postings by Thiago from just after the event. I wrestled my way through this whole thing, trying to get through the self-referential nature of all the acronyms. Somewhere in the middle I finally found what a QUIP is supposed to be.

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On Monday 19 September 2016 23:27:52 Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Montag, 19. September 2016 18:48:10 CEST Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Monday 19 September 2016 18:20:48 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > Should we do fuzzy comparisns in QVariant? > > > > If you talk about op==, then using fuzzy compare is a

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On 20/09/16 09:27, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" wrote: On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 09:02:11 PDT André Somers wrote: > So, could you please explain, preferably without

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On Dienstag, 20. September 2016 03:08:42 CEST Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Since this is a P3 and 5.8 hasn't been released, I will push the behaviour > > change to 5.8 and drop the fuzzy comparison. > > Is such a behavior change really acceptable for 5.8? I think it can break

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

Am 19.09.2016 um 23:27 schrieb Olivier Goffart: We really cannot have a qHash for QVariant anyway, because that would imply that ALL QVariant can be hashed, and compared. Which is not the case. Most custom types don't even register comparator function. Which actually is quite a serious

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On Tuesday 20 September 2016 12:44:04 Olivier Goffart wrote: > > It is easy to forget registering comparator functions and currently Qt > > doesn't help in debugging such issues. So I wonder if QVariant should > > forbid comparison of custom types without having a comparator function > >

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

> [*] https://wiki.qt.io/Template:QUIP > If someone with more Wiki-template-foo could please review this, I'm > sure it can be improved; in particular, it uses 000{{{1}}} where clearly > some analogue of formatting {{{1}}} with %03d would be more apt. Sorry, obviously I meant %04d ...

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On Dienstag, 20. September 2016 12:21:11 CEST Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 um 23:27 schrieb Olivier Goffart: > > We really cannot have a qHash for QVariant anyway, because that would > > imply > > that ALL QVariant can be hashed, and compared. Which is not the case. Most > > custom

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

My thinking. I’m fine to have initial discussions on the mailing list, but agreeing on and nailing down details will be a lot easier to do on codereview. Lars On 20/09/16 19:04, "Development on behalf of Filippo Cucchetto"

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On 20.09.2016 21:26, Thiago Macieira wrote: On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 19:04:07 PDT Filippo Cucchetto wrote: Really? Shouldn't be better to just announce a proposal on the mailing list and then shift the discussion and feedbacks on the codereview? It may come as a shock to you,

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 22:30:56 PDT Sergio Ahumada wrote: > which 5-year-old feature are we missing? The new UI. I want to see all comment, in all files, from all reviews, along with the review message, in one page. The new UI also has the ability to comment on multiple lines

Re: [Development] Qt5 Bearer: broken PPP support

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 22:48:42 PDT Alexander Smirnov wrote: > After debugging I figured out, that the problem is in commit: > >043f5d3eb52587831f643bc52c95079c36d984c7 > > This commit allows to add to list: > >QList interfaces; > > interfaces with no address field

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

20.09.2016, 22:11, "Matthew Woehlke" : > That works with e.g. make/ninja, but not so well with VS, but that's a > VS failing that I don't see how Qbs could overcome, given that VS *is* > the build tool and doesn't AFAIK support dynamic build graphs. QBS does not use

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

On terça-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 19:04:07 PDT Filippo Cucchetto wrote: > Really? > Shouldn't be better to just announce a proposal on the mailing list > and then shift the discussion and feedbacks > on the codereview? It may come as a shock to you, but the Gerrit user interface is horrible.

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

On 2016-09-08 07:41, Bo Thorsen wrote: > Den 05-09-2016 kl. 20:49 skrev Milian Wolff: >>> As an incredibly simple example, make is inherently limited in that it >>> cannot even represent a rule with multiple outputs (there are some >>> workarounds, but they are hacky and rather limited in how they

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > > > 20.09.2016, 22:11, "Matthew Woehlke" : >> That works with e.g. make/ninja, but not so well with VS, but that's a >> VS failing that I don't see how Qbs could overcome, given that VS

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

20.09.2016, 22:21, "Matthew Woehlke" : > On 2016-09-15 02:57, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >>  On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:05:15PM +0200, Stephen Kelly via Development >> wrote: >>>  I want to understand Qbs and what it can do with a dynamic build graph >>>  which CMake

[Development] Qt5 Bearer: broken PPP support

Dear all, I've faced with the following problem. I use the Linux-based board, in which I start PPP daemon to have GPRS networking. After upgrading from Qt5.4 to Qt5.6 my ppp0 interface is always in QNetworkConfiguration::Defined state, so it's unusable. After debugging I figured out, that

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

On 2016-09-15 02:57, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:05:15PM +0200, Stephen Kelly via Development wrote: >> I want to understand Qbs and what it can do with a dynamic build graph >> which CMake can't do. > > there is no such thing, as after full expansion the graph has to be

Re: [Development] Notes on "Qt Build Systems" @ QtCon 2016

On 2016-09-20 15:18, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > 20.09.2016, 22:11, "Matthew Woehlke" : >> That works with e.g. make/ninja, but not so well with VS, but that's a >> VS failing that I don't see how Qbs could overcome, given that VS *is* >> the build tool and doesn't AFAIK

Re: [Development] QCS2016 Session Notes - QUIPs for Qt

I could agree, but basically you're saying that the problem is the tool and not the idea to discuss the details on the codereview. At the end a proposal is for sure a document (thus a sort of source file) and so gerrit would help matching the discussion with the actual version of the document

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

Thiago Macieira wrote: > And I will reject any patch that adds more complexity in qFuzzyCompare for > a 0.01% corner-case. Instead, we should document that it only works for > finite numbers far enough away from zero. If your number can be infinite > or NaN or zero, you have to find something

Re: [Development] Should QVariant be doing fuzzy comparisons on doubles?

On quarta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2016 03:56:31 PDT Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > And I will reject any patch that adds more complexity in qFuzzyCompare for > > a 0.01% corner-case. Instead, we should document that it only works for > > finite numbers far enough away from zero.