On Tuesday 01 October 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> > having helped as far as we could.
>
> But why should webkit have _any_ burden when Qt itself cares so little
> about QtWebKit that it is happy to have qtisms that were ostensibly
> necessary for performance, etc removed?
>
So if we try minimize t
On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:50 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Monday 30 September 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>> Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It
>>> may never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKi
To me the most invasive Qtism is qmake.
When can we get rid of that?
-Fil
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:50 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 30 September 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>>> wrote:
>>> Some of this is exactly the reason
On Monday 30 September 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It
> > may never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKit with anything
> > Blink/Chromium based.
>
> I really don’t un
On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It may
> never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKit with anything Blink/Chromium
> based.
I really don’t understand this, there are only two options:
1. Qt Webkit i
30.09.2013, 13:59, "Allan Sandfeld Jensen" :
> If a new branch is made from WebKit trunk in the future would likely only be
> limited to specific platforms, and therefore not suited as a module shipped
> with Qt, but as an optional upgrade.
If QtWebKit is downgraded from Qt Essentials to Qt add-
> It should be removable by manually reverting r119217, it will hurt Qt WK2 and
> JSC bridge performance, but in theory not break anything if done right. Do
> you
> need to remove it to free a up a new type of string buffer ownership?
We’d like to remove all special buffers, so that:
-
On Monday 30 September 2013, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> I’m planning to remove m_qStringData from StringImpl, along with any code
> that depends on it. Any objections?
>
It should be removable by manually reverting r119217, it will hurt Qt WK2 and
JSC bridge performance, but in theory not break anyt
I’m planning to remove m_qStringData from StringImpl, along with any code that
depends on it. Any objections?
Geoff
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
On Monday 30 September 2013, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>
> I would not necessarily disagree with the problem of upstreaming work. But
> you said that most likely you wouldn't be able to branch WebKit anymore
> because of the compiler requirement. At least for Qt. Do you have other
> interests in QtWebK
"New XML parser" was removed from the tree [1].
[1] https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2012-August/022103.html
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/140399
On 30 September 2013 19:18, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>
> 30.09.2013, 17:39, "Dirk Schulze" :
> > On Sep 30, 2013, at 11:58 AM, A
30.09.2013, 17:39, "Dirk Schulze" :
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 26 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>> wrote:
On Saturday 14 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Sep
On Sep 30, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Thursday 26 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>>> On Saturday 14 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>>>
On Thursday 26 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
> >> On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> That said, in all likelihood the Qt port will no
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Saturday 14 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> wrote:
>>> That said, in all likelihood the Qt port will not remain part of WebKit
>>> forever, ...
>>
>> (This being the ma
On Saturday 14 September 2013, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> > That said, in all likelihood the Qt port will not remain part of WebKit
> > forever, ...
>
> (This being the main reason.)
>
> Since you already know you’re eventually going to l
Allan,
Andreas and Benjamin make good points, care to respond? (Being an active
member of this community means responding on this mailing list).
-Sam
On Sep 14, 2013, at 3:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Friday 13 September 2013, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
>>
>> This is sad.
>
> Yes
On 9/14/13, 9:21 AM, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>>
>>> When "modules" of Qt are put on "maintenance", it is basically a synonym
>>> to "it's unmaintained, just let it die". I am very unexcited about
>>> having one of those in the tree along t
On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>
>> When "modules" of Qt are put on "maintenance", it is basically a synonym
>> to "it's unmaintained, just let it die". I am very unexcited about
>> having one of those in the tree along the live development from everyone
>> else.
>> I
On Friday 13 September 2013, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
>
> This is sad.
Yes :(
>
> When "modules" of Qt are put on "maintenance", it is basically a synonym
> to "it's unmaintained, just let it die". I am very unexcited about
> having one of those in the tree along the live development from everyo
On Sep 13, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On 9/13/13, 4:50 AM, Albisser Zeno wrote:
>> As many of you have probably noticed already, we have recently been focusing
>> on a project called Qt WebEngine. Our WebKit efforts have therefore been
>> reduced significantly over the past w
On 9/13/13, 4:50 AM, Albisser Zeno wrote:
> As many of you have probably noticed already, we have recently been
> focusing on a project called Qt WebEngine. Our WebKit efforts have
> therefore been reduced significantly over the past weeks.
> While we will keep shipping QtWebKit with Qt for the for
Oh, I see, this is about Qt joining the Blink project. I am disappointed to
hear it, but now I understand.
I think that once Qt WebKit reaches the point where it is not actively being
worked on, it would be best to remove it.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev m
Hi Darin,
I think he forgot to paste the link which add a bit of meat to the
conversation.
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/09/12/introducing-the-qt-webengine/
Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Albisser Zeno
> wrote:
>
> Qt WebEngin
Hi Benjamin,
On Sep 13, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> This is sad.
I can understand very well, that you are not very happy about this. And I don't
think anybody here took this decision lightly.
>
> When "modules" of Qt are put on "maintenance", it is basically a synonym to
> "i
On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Albisser Zeno wrote:
> Qt WebEngine
What is that? Is it based on a fork of WebKit?
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Hello WebKittens
As many of you have probably noticed already, we have recently been focusing on
a project called Qt WebEngine. Our WebKit efforts have therefore been reduced
significantly over the past weeks.
While we will keep shipping QtWebKit with Qt for the foreseeable future, we
want to c
27 matches
Mail list logo
