I think this happened because of the patch that transformed mainwindow to
have an ::instance() method, but didn`t fully fixed the rest of the code.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 18 fev 2014, às 16:30:01, Dirk Hohndel escreveu:
> > > Can someone verify whether t
Em ter 18 fev 2014, às 16:30:01, Dirk Hohndel escreveu:
> > Can someone verify whether the pointer was null? It looks unlikely though.
>
> Definitely not null. And adding qDebug() to the lastUsedImageDir()
> function I was able to see that it got called. But something in that
> process destroyed t
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 16:25 -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em ter 18 fev 2014, às 16:16:10, Dirk Hohndel escreveu:
> > On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> > > dirk, can you test the patch? I couldn`t really understand why it crashed
> > > if not static, since we should always ha
Em ter 18 fev 2014, às 16:16:10, Dirk Hohndel escreveu:
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> > dirk, can you test the patch? I couldn`t really understand why it crashed
> > if not static, since we should always have that object. saing that - the
> > correct way to handle that sh
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> dirk, can you test the patch? I couldn`t really understand why it crashed if
> not static, since we should always have that object.
> saing that - the correct way to handle that should be from the Settings, no?
The patch does indeed fix thi
dirk, can you test the patch? I couldn`t really understand why it crashed
if not static, since we should always have that object.
saing that - the correct way to handle that should be from the Settings, no?
QSettings s;
s.value("lastUsedImageDirectory").toString() or something
On Tue, Feb 18, 20
On 17 Feb 2014, at 23:57, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> This does not include the promised whitespace overhaul.
> Instead I added a few outstanding patches and went down the rabbit hole
> of trying to track down a crash with Robert's image shift patches.
>
> Here's how I can reliably reproduce this.
I'll try to debug this too.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 23:34 -0300, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dirk Hohndel
> > wrote:
> >
> > This does not include the promised whitespace overhaul.
> >
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 23:34 -0300, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dirk Hohndel
> wrote:
>
> This does not include the promised whitespace overhaul.
> Instead I added a few outstanding patches and went down the
> rabbit hole
>
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> This does not include the promised whitespace overhaul.
> Instead I added a few outstanding patches and went down the rabbit hole
> of trying to track down a crash with Robert's image shift patches.
>
> Here's how I can reliably reproduce t
This does not include the promised whitespace overhaul.
Instead I added a few outstanding patches and went down the rabbit hole
of trying to track down a crash with Robert's image shift patches.
Here's how I can reliably reproduce this.
Open a dive log in Subsurface - one of the test dives will
11 matches
Mail list logo
