Qt Contributor Summit 2024 - Program: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Quo Vadis, TTLOFIR? Or: Towards a Qt Coding Standard) |
(+ language server repo discussion) |
||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
|"Things to look out for in review" (https://wiki.qt.io/Things_To_Look_Out_For_In_Reviews) started as a low-entry-barrier way to collect guidelines surrounding code^Wgit-versioned contributions, to be distributed to "official" documents as time goes by. While I believe it had a positive impact on many Qt contributors already in the present form, I still see (too) many of the issues, discussed there, in approved code, suggesting that it may be time to migrate some of the content to said "official" format (QUIP? Qt Coding Standard (no, not the whitespace formatting guideline that currently carries the name)). Also, the number of contributions to TTLOFIR from others than myself remains relatively small (with an explicit shout-out to those who ''did'' contribute!). Seeing as the number of Qt contributors only continues to grow (itself a very healthy sign), I think the project is facing a bit of "didn't know; if known, didn't read; if read; didn't understand; if understood, didn't apply" going on. So this session is both to spread awareness, as well as discuss how the process to migrate TTLOFIR items to a more "official" format could look like. | |"Things to look out for in review" (https://wiki.qt.io/Things_To_Look_Out_For_In_Reviews) started as a low-entry-barrier way to collect guidelines surrounding code^Wgit-versioned contributions, to be distributed to "official" documents as time goes by. While I believe it had a positive impact on many Qt contributors already in the present form, I still see (too) many of the issues, discussed there, in approved code, suggesting that it may be time to migrate some of the content to said "official" format (QUIP? Qt Coding Standard (no, not the whitespace formatting guideline that currently carries the name)). Also, the number of contributions to TTLOFIR from others than myself remains relatively small (with an explicit shout-out to those who ''did'' contribute!). Seeing as the number of Qt contributors only continues to grow (itself a very healthy sign), I think the project is facing a bit of "didn't know; if known, didn't read; if read; didn't understand; if understood, didn't apply" going on. So this session is both to spread awareness, as well as discuss how the process to migrate TTLOFIR items to a more "official" format could look like. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |Future of QtLanguageServer repo / Proper CI for non-mainline repos? | ||
| | |QML Team | ||
| | |Discussion | ||
| | |The Qt Language Server repository contains an implementation of JSON RPC and skeleton functionality to implement a language server. It is a non-essential module, which led to https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-115252 , causing it's main user qmlls to not work. While this issue has been resolved, we should ponder a few questions: | ||
* Do we really need a proper Qt module for it? | |||
* Should JSON RPC move to QtBase? | |||
* Would anything besides qmlls benefit from having generic language server support? | |||
* Can we have "non-mainline" repos which still get the full gerrit+CI workflow (the main reason Qt Language Server became an official module)? | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
Revision as of 09:34, 8 July 2024
Event main page: Qt Contributor Summit 2024
Please, add your sessions/talks/presentations to the table by the end of the page.
→ If you have any issues while editing this page, please contact Pedro Bessa directly at pedro.bessa@qt.io
Qt Contributor Summit 2024 Program, to be updated
Thursday, September 5th
Morning: Keynote Sessions
Afternoon: Breakout rooms
Friday, September 6th
Morning: Keynote Sessions
Afternoon: Breakout rooms
| Topic | Speaker | Format | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Title | Add Your Name(s) | Discussion/Presentation/Workshop/... | Add a short paragraph about the scope of the proposed talk. |
| Whither QProperty? Wither, perpetuate or evolve? | Fabian Kosmale | Discussion session | We've added bindable C++ properties in Qt 6 – and then mostly ignored them except for bug fixes. Let's recap why we've added it to begin with, collect how it's currently . Then, investigate why we (mostly) went nowhere with it and whether we we want to change that. |
| std::format support in Qt | Ivan Solovev | Discussion session | We've started to provide support for formatting Qt types using std::format, but we might need some more features from the standard in order to use std::format *inside* Qt. Let's try to discuss what we need from the standard and how can we achieve that. |
| Qt for Python | Friedemann Kleint | Discussion session | Discuss Qt for Python development and explore ways to enhance its interoperability with other Qt products through feedback, ideas, and constructive criticism. |
| Coding Assistants for Qt | Peter Schneider | Discussion session | What kind of coding assistant solutions/Large Language Models are you using? Do you believe Qt should fine-tune some of the open-source LLM with more QML training data? Which features of coding assistants (write docu, write test case, write code, explain code, fix code, refactor code, etc) are you or would you be willing to use? Do you see a need to integrate more Qt-optimized coding assistants to the Qt Creator, Visual Studio Code, etc? |
| Deprecation vs Compatibility | Eddy | Discussion session | Follow up on Peppe, Andre' and others discussing SC/BC and the impact of deprecations on users. |
| What's new in QtGraphs | Tomi Korpipää | Presentation + Discussion | A look into what has changed between QtDataVisualization and QtGraphs, which will be out of TP in Qt 6.8.
A short presentation followed by a discussion of where we can / should take it next. |
| Quo Vadis, TTLOFIR? | Marc Mutz | Discussion | "Things to look out for in review" (https://wiki.qt.io/Things_To_Look_Out_For_In_Reviews) started as a low-entry-barrier way to collect guidelines surrounding code^Wgit-versioned contributions, to be distributed to "official" documents as time goes by. While I believe it had a positive impact on many Qt contributors already in the present form, I still see (too) many of the issues, discussed there, in approved code, suggesting that it may be time to migrate some of the content to said "official" format (QUIP? Qt Coding Standard (no, not the whitespace formatting guideline that currently carries the name)). Also, the number of contributions to TTLOFIR from others than myself remains relatively small (with an explicit shout-out to those who did contribute!). Seeing as the number of Qt contributors only continues to grow (itself a very healthy sign), I think the project is facing a bit of "didn't know; if known, didn't read; if read; didn't understand; if understood, didn't apply" going on. So this session is both to spread awareness, as well as discuss how the process to migrate TTLOFIR items to a more "official" format could look like. |
| Future of QtLanguageServer repo / Proper CI for non-mainline repos? | QML Team | Discussion | The Qt Language Server repository contains an implementation of JSON RPC and skeleton functionality to implement a language server. It is a non-essential module, which led to https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-115252 , causing it's main user qmlls to not work. While this issue has been resolved, we should ponder a few questions:
|