>Though it was already usable in practice, sebas never considered Lionmail as "finished", so finishing it means more than merely porting it. So,could this be considered as a constructive idea , or we should skip it for now? Regards
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Pfeiffer <colo...@autistici.org>wrote: > On Saturday 08 February 2014 06:46:35 Martin Klapetek wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Heena Mahour <heena...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Re implementation of lion mail is required in any case . > > > It is currently using data engine which is not the required tool as it > > > should use models throughout and all is based on QGraphicsView . > > > > DataEngines are just fine for Plasma Next, actually even the clock applet > > is directly using a DataEngine. There was an architectual change in teh > DEs > > that makes them use models, but they are still fully supported option. > > > > > It is architecturally broken and not yet finished as was suggested by > > > Sebas . > > > So , it would be a nice idea for that I think . > > > > Remember that GSoC is about 3 months of full-time (payed) work, porting > > one-two plasmoids can be a couple weekends project at most... > > Though it was already usable in practice, sebas never considered Lionmail > as > "finished", so finishing it means more than merely porting it. > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel > -- -Heena Season of kde'12 participant Google Summer of Code 2013 Delhi College of Engineering(COE),India http://about.me/heena.mahour http://heenamahour.blogspot.in
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
