Get rid of QPainter warnings

Thiago Macieira wrote:

Sebastian Sauer wrote:
the reason for the early adoption of 4.4. y, it may sound PR-like to
>point to all the issues that got addressed to get things like painting
>faster, to get widgets-on-canvas working, to address the SVG-issues,
>etc. while someone who does not profit from this improvments just did
>note that e.g. at least 2 new crashes got introduced to koffice-libs
>(and worked around already). Well, the point here is that some
>sub-projects of KDE are needing 4.4 asap while others would like to
>avoid it till proven to be at least as stable as the prev 4.3 release
>was. Really not an easy thing but imho that's something TT is totaly
>unrelated here plus it's also total logical to stat that "I'm not
>wasting anymore time when fundamental things are broken in Qt" since
>there are other more important things a project may need to work on. No
>idea how others see it but my personal feeling is, that this implicit
>asks for a discusion about future release-policies how to handle KDE
>vs. Qt-releases. I mean to just change the underlying base such late in
>a KDE release-circle is really not a good thing and just asks for
>frustration through I do understand that there was just no better
>alternate for 4.1 for some parts of KDE :-/

The quality of the Qt release is deeply tied to the rate of adoption of
the pre-release technologies. If KDE had waited for the final release,
the end result would be the same level of stability and regressions. That
happens because we fix the issues in the pre-release period as they are
reported mostly from the KDE community.

If KDE decided to wait for the 4.x.1 or 4.x.2 release, KDE would find
Trolltech developers less responsive to bug reports because they have
already started working on new features.

course, having no regressions is our objective for each and every
release. But, realistically speaking, we can't catch all cases. There
will be regressions.

y, absolute logical. But on the other hand there is a desire to base own work
on something stable. Probably a wild guess (based on my limited contacts with
other devels), but I wouldn't wonder if much more then half of our developers
are developing for that reason against the 4.0.x-branch rather then in trunk
since not everybody is motivated to spend time to dig at the underlying tech
rather then to improve his/her own work.
Anyway, I guess that's all still a temp issue like quit some ppl didn't "svn
up" kdelibs any longer before 4.0 was published to prevent to trade known
problems against new ones. So, that issue should hopefully go away once the
big incompatible steps between stable-branch and trunk at code own work
depends on arn't there any longer.

Sunday 06 April 2008 18:49:51 Sebastian Sauer wrote:
But on the other hand there is a desire to base own work
on something stable.

Then you shouldn't be developing against trunk kdelibs either.

--
* Thiago Macieira *- *thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
* * PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
* * E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C *966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)


NhyI6R497RAm5eV8VsVU=
=n4zY
PGP SIGNATURE

y, absolute logical. But on the other hand there is a desire to base own
work
on something stable. Probably a wild guess (based on my limited contacts
with
other devels), but I wouldn't wonder if much more then half of our
developers
are developing for that reason against the 4.0.x-branch rather then in
trunk
since not everybody is motivated to spend time to dig at the underlying
tech
rather then to improve his/her own work.

It's not just a matter of this. I would normally have no problem doing
this, but e.g. I feel we have enough bugs in KDE4.0.x to not have to deal
with an extra source of instability in Qt 4.4 until kdelibs and KDE
themselves are fully bugfixed to satisfaction.

Really, Thiago, seems like you Trolls don't even use KDE4.x, and yet
you're surprised some of us don't want to throw in a pre-release Qt into
the mix?

Wednesday 09 April 2008 15:02:54 Maksim wrote:
Really, Thiago, seems like you Trolls don't even use KDE4.x, and yet
you're surprised some of us don't want to throw in a pre-release Qt into
the mix?

I'm not surprised. But the requirement to upgrade came from KDE, not from
Trolltech.

In any case, RC1 is not considered unstable.

--
* Thiago Macieira *- *thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
* * PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
* * E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C *966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)


qQZiG6uydrCS2e0uSNJ2Zg8=
=WIk1
PGP SIGNATURE

Am Mittwoch 09 April 2008 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
Wednesday 09 April 2008 15:02:54 Maksim wrote:
Really, Thiago, seems like you Trolls don't even use KDE4.x, and yet
you're surprised some of us don't want to throw in a pre-release Qt into
the mix?
>
I'm not surprised. But the requirement to upgrade came from KDE, not from
Trolltech.
>
In any case, RC1 is not considered unstable.
Just unusable? At least I'm back to Qt3 konqueror - if it matters to
Trolltech. And the openSUSE community runs havoc due to bugs as this - long
live KDE3.5 ;(

Greetings, Stephan