Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:51:24AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Hm... not sure. I've been using the commercial version of Qt for three
years and now in the new job some in-house version from which both the
commercial and the OS versions are build. I think I never used the
OS v
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:51:24AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >Hm... not sure. I've been using the commercial version of Qt for three
> >years and now in the new job some in-house version from which both the
> >commercial and the OS versions are build. I think I never used the
> >OS version on Wi
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:59:44PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
A second
reason is that qmake has two abilities than none of the other three
systems have: It knows about Qt, so no special code for .ui or such
needed, and it has _real_ MSVS integratio
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:24:09PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> >> - Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense?
> >
> > Because I already wasted half a year of my lifetime on Windows installers
> > and
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:59:44PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >A second
> >reason is that qmake has two abilities than none of the other three
> >systems have: It knows about Qt, so no special code for .ui or such
> >needed, and it has _real_ MSVS integration including
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Georg Baum wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
- Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense?
Because I already wasted half a year of my lifetime on Windows installers
and I won't touch them even with a three yar
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> - Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense?
Because I already wasted half a year of my lifetime on Windows
installers and I won't touch them even with a three yard pole unless
there was a _really good reason_. [And I doubt your purse
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
>> - Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense?
>
> Because I already wasted half a year of my lifetime on Windows installers
> and I won't touch them even with a three yard pole unless there was a
> _reall
Andre Poenitz wrote:
A second
reason is that qmake has two abilities than none of the other three
systems have: It knows about Qt, so no special code for .ui or such
needed, and it has _real_ MSVS integration including project management,
integrated help, designer and so on based on .pro files as
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:11:49PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Well, we need to express opinions to reach consensus, don't we? I know
> that my opinions are in general not shared with old devs but this is my
> opinion :-)
> I want more frequent releases, this is the only way IMHO to avoid b
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> > And those resources would not have been available anymore for other
> > work.
>
> Do I really have to tell you that not wasted resources are not automatically
> available for something else?
No. I know that's not always the case.
>
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Well, we need to express opinions to reach consensus, don't we?
Of course. I simply think that this consensus is still quite a bit away.
Georg
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Georg Baum wrote:
I have learned my lesson. If I will fix a bug in my branch I will no more
bring it to lyx-devel, since it only results in frustration.
Why that? The two subjects are unrelated AFAIS.
No. This thread would not exist if I had not
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>> I have learned my lesson. If I will fix a bug in my branch I will no more
>> bring it to lyx-devel, since it only results in frustration.
>
> Why that? The two subjects are unrelated AFAIS.
No. This thread would not exist if I had not tried to put
Georg Baum wrote:
Of course, because the person who did almost all of the interface changes
(Abdel, I don't count the changes that were done by a script) complained
every few days that he had to care for other frontends when he was still
supposed to care, and he was really tired of caring.
I p
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
>> You still don't get it. All your arguments including this one and that
>> in your other mail are based on the assumption that there were only
>> two alternatives: full support or removal from trunk. Under this
>>
On Thursday 23 August 2007 19:30:19 Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
>
> > That alternative would of course not have guaranteed that 1.5.0 would be
> > released with qt3. Maybe it would indeed have been too much work to keep
> > it up to date, and i
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 12:51:36AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:35:46PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > That's true for all of us, that's why there is no Qt3 frontend anymore.
> >
> > There is no Qt3 frontend anymore because it was brutally murdered.
>
> Poor li
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> You still don't get it. All your arguments including this one and that
> in your other mail are based on the assumption that there were only
> two alternatives: full support or removal from trunk. Under this
> premise I agree completely
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> And you do not even try to keep it alive.
I explained the reasons in detail back then. If this is not some random
accusation and you are really interested why this was no option anymore go
read the archives (thread "Random Notes").
[...]
> Now that you look at trac you mi
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>
> Jean-Pierre, if you have problem with Qt, then I suggest to report this
> to the Qt-interest mailing list. There is a news interface too. My
> experience is that they are pretty responsive.
Sure, I'm already in the process of subscribing.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:24:17PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chretien wrote:
If a Qt3 frontend was provided, I will be using LyX 1.5 on solaris,
as that is not the case, I will be still sticking with 1.4 for the
time being. With that attitude you may scare away users of altern
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:24:17PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Chretien wrote:
> >> If a Qt3 frontend was provided, I will be using LyX 1.5 on solaris,
> >> as that is not the case, I will be still sticking with 1.4 for the
> >> time being. With that attitude you may scare away users of alternative
> >> sy
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:52:30PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> > Murdered is a bit too strong here, I think.
>
> No, it describes quite accurately what happened with qt3: Some people
> decided all of a sudden that it had to go from 'supported, must work'
> status to 'dead,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:45:36PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> > It would have eaten resources from a dozen or so active developers which
> > would have reluctantly invested part of there time to maintain qt3.
>
> Bullshit. The offer by me and Jürgen was to do the maintenance, so nobody
> else woul
>> If a Qt3 frontend was provided, I will be using LyX 1.5 on solaris,
>> as that is not the case, I will be still sticking with 1.4 for the
>> time being. With that attitude you may scare away users of alternative
>> systems, which often can't even have the third last released version.
I fully ag
> Sorry, I was wrong about qt3.
>
> Helge Hafting
go and wash your mouth with soap!
Georg Baum wrote:
Helge Hafting wrote:
Murdered is a bit too strong here, I think.
No, it describes quite accurately what happened with qt3: Some people
decided all of a sudden that it had to go from 'supported, must work'
status to 'dead, removed from the repo'.
Sorry, I was wrong
Georg Baum wrote:
Helge Hafting wrote:
If anyone had stepped up and said "I will maintain qt3/gtk,
implement every new dialog etc. in a timely manner"
then these frontends would have lived. But no one did,
so they died.
Wrong (for qt3), exactly this offer did exist.
I think Helge is talkin
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 12:59:13PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Yes, they are better spent in adding new build systems. I stand in my
> > opinion that the Qt3 and gtk frontends were murdered.
> >
>
> Murdered is a bit too strong here, I think.
> Several core devel
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Murdered is a bit too strong here, I think.
No, it describes quite accurately what happened with qt3: Some people
decided all of a sudden that it had to go from 'supported, must work'
status to 'dead, removed from the repo'.
> Several core developers decided they did not w
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:15:12AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:42PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Yes, they are better spent in adding new build systems. I stand in my
opinion that the Qt3 and gtk frontends were murdered.
Murdered is a bit too strong here, I think.
Several core developers decided they did not want
to actively _support_ these frontends anymore. T
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:22:51AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> But you talk like if it was an easy task to begin with. Believe me, it
> was and is still not. And it was very time consuming too. If I may
> sumarize the pros about multiple frontends:
>
> - system integration: this is good I
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:15:12AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:42PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had been
> > > > a real interest
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:42PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote:
The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had been a real
interest in further development it would have happened.
At the time there was
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:42PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > >
> > > The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had been a real
> > > interest in further development it would have happened.
> >
> > At the time there was i
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >
> > The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had been a real
> > interest in further development it would have happened.
>
> At the time there was interest, but it was nevertheless removed.
Enrico, in the interest of h
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:35:46PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > That's true for all of us, that's why there is no Qt3 frontend anymore.
>
> There is no Qt3 frontend anymore because it was brutally murdered.
Poor little thing still lives a zombie life in the repository. Check it
out, dool i
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:18:21PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:20:01PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > [...] Then the Qt build system doesn't let you perform out of tree
> > builds (shadow builds in Qt parliance), even if Qt 4.3 is a big step
> > forward in this r
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Still, I'd be curious to see how many people on X11 use Qt4.1... I bet
not a lot. All the predicted integration problem did not really happened
AFAICS.
There have been already complaints for the dismis
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:47:08PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:52:06PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:37:25PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > There have be
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:20:01PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> [...] Then the Qt build system doesn't let you perform out of tree
> builds (shadow builds in Qt parliance), even if Qt 4.3 is a big step
> forward in this respect.
I just tried a shadow build of Qt 4.3.0 itself and it worked
ou
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:52:06PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:37:25PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > There have been already complaints for the dismission of the Qt3
> > > frontend by the
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
compilations to avoid bugs in Qt 4.1. I also do care about code
simplification that would results in a switch to 4.2 (I'm thinking about
Edwin's toolbar widget for example).
a switch to 4.2 might be a good idea for some things, but i wouldn't
replace my toolbar widget
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:37:25PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > There have been already complaints for the dismission of the Qt3
> > frontend by the FreeBSD people. There are other systems in the world
> > other than Windows a
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:26:47PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:37:25AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> > > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel w
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> There have been already complaints for the dismission of the Qt3
> frontend by the FreeBSD people. There are other systems in the world
> other than Windows and Linux.
So they should f*** spend _their_ time on a Qt3 frontend
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:37:25AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > >
> > >> LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:56:36PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 03:18:15AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:29:00AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:10:29AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > Note that it
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:37:25AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> >> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >>>
> LyX 1.5 is released no
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 03:18:15AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:29:00AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:10:29AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > Note that it is much simpler and faster building Qt4 from sources than it
> > > is buil
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:37:25AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:37:25AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> >> LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
> >
> > This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may be add
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:10:29AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Note that it is much simpler and faster building Qt4 from sources than it
is building LyX. I have 4.1.5, 4.2.3, and 4.3.1 installed and I configure
LyX for each version through a script without any hassle.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may be added
through conditional compilation without the need for bumping
the requirements.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:21:36AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:20:37PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> > > LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
> >
> > This is becomin
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:29:00AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:10:29AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Note that it is much simpler and faster building Qt4 from sources than it
> > is building LyX. I have 4.1.5, 4.2.3, and 4.3.1 installed and I configure
> > LyX fo
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:10:29AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> Note that it is much simpler and faster building Qt4 from sources than it
> is building LyX. I have 4.1.5, 4.2.3, and 4.3.1 installed and I configure
> LyX for each version through a script without any hassle.
And that's with mor
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:20:37PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> > LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
>
> This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may be added
> through conditional compila
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:35:05PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
This is becoming tedious. A
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:35:05PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> >
> >> LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
> >>
> > This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may be added
through conditional compilation without the need for bumping
the require
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> LyX 1.5 is released now, why not drop the requirement Qt >= 4.1?
This is becoming tedious. Any bells and whistles may be added
through conditional compilation without the need for bumping
the requirements. So, if you like candies, yo
Georg Baum wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rgheck
Date: Mon Aug 20 19:04:00 2007
New Revision: 19659
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/19659
Log:
Fix margin problem.
Thanks, but this was not enough :-( Since I saw how you fixed it I fixed the
remaining problems. BTW, there used
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rgheck
> Date: Mon Aug 20 19:04:00 2007
> New Revision: 19659
>
> URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/19659
> Log:
> Fix margin problem.
Thanks, but this was not enough :-( Since I saw how you fixed it I fixed the
remaining problems. BTW, there used to be th
66 matches
Mail list logo
