Re: [Interest] Backporting bugs to Qt 5.6

2018-09-24 Thread Danny Smit
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Alexandru Croitor wrote: > > You will probably want to read http://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Contribution_Guidelines > > And specifically to your questions, bug fixes first go to the current stable > brach of Qt (5.11.3 in this case), and once the patches are in, they can be

Re: [Interest] Backporting bugs to Qt 5.6

2018-09-21 Thread Danny Smit
Thanks both, On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:45 PM Florian Bruhin wrote: > According to [1], Debian stable packages Qt 5.7.1 (which is not an LTS), > and testing/unstable both ship 5.11.1. Yes, you are absolutely right. I got the versions mixed up. > See [2]. The Qt 5.6 release was in March 2016,

[Interest] Backporting bugs to Qt 5.6

2018-09-21 Thread Danny Smit
in issue) https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-48344 (fixed in Qt 5.11) -- Kind Regards, Danny Smit ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QEventDispatcherGlib: timers don't timeout due to higher priority of socket notifier event dispatching

2015-09-18 Thread Danny Smit
d this will probably have unexpected side effects. Moreover, it makes the whole implementation of the explicit difference between idle and non-idle event dispatching in the GLIB dispatcher useless. I'm not sure if this information helps, but please let me know if there is anything more that I can do

[Interest] QEventDispatcherGlib: timers don't timeout due to higher priority of socket notifier event dispatching.

2015-09-17 Thread Danny Smit
g the side effects described above, it doesn't seem to work as expected. Can someone advise whether this is the behavior as intended or whether this points to an issue in Qt? Regards, Danny Smit ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http: