On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Matěj Laitl wrote:
> On 29. 5. 2013 Edward Hades wrote:
>> Well, since we're the only ones interested, let's just go ahead,
>> concentrating on the parts we agree upon, okay?
>
> Absolutely. I've been ironing out some details in my head since then,
> concentrating
On 29. 5. 2013 Edward Hades wrote:
> Well, since we're the only ones interested, let's just go ahead,
> concentrating on the parts we agree upon, okay?
Absolutely. I've been ironing out some details in my head since then,
concentrating on keeping it as simple as possible in order not to bury us
Well, since we're the only ones interested, let's just go ahead,
concentrating on the parts we agree upon, okay?
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Matěj Laitl wrote:
> On 12. 4. 2013 Edward Toroshchin wrote:
> > First of all, thanks for reading everything I've written under
> > intoxication. And
On 12. 4. 2013 Edward Toroshchin wrote:
> First of all, thanks for reading everything I've written under
> intoxication. And for taking seriously the need of designing the
> architecture for the future.
>
> You also present some good ideas. However, I am sure that the process
> split is compatible
Hi,
First of all, thanks for reading everything I've written under
intoxication. And for taking seriously the need of designing the
architecture for the future.
You also present some good ideas. However, I am sure that the process
split is compatible with your solution, and I'll defend it hereaft
On 12. 4. 2013 Edward Toroshchin wrote:
> My personal view on this point being: the engine, media database and UI
> (at least) must be separate processes, so that:
>
> + at least the first two can be made rock-solid, valgrinded,
>unit-tested, etc.,
> + the data structures
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Matěj Laitl wrote:
> Yeah "revival" is a bad word. Please suggest a better name, I'm unable to
> think of any.
Renovation? Revamp? Revising?
> Well, while I agree something like this is needed and beneficial, I fear this
> is not really well suited for
On 12. 4. 2013 Edward Toroshchin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:46:31PM +0200, Matěj Laitl wrote:
> > I've added 3 ideas, but I might not be able to mentor them in case I'm
> > accepted as a student, however I plan to do code reviews. Please have a
> > look at these - if they seem nonsense, pl
Hi,
I guess the first question is quite important: who is going to mentor at
all?
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:46:31PM +0200, Matěj Laitl wrote:
> I've added 3 ideas, but I might not be able to mentor them in case I'm
> accepted as a student, however I plan to do code reviews. Please have a look
Hi fellow devs,
KDE has been accepted for GSoC again, kudos to all organizers that made it
possible.
This is also a great opportunity for you to consider applying to be a mentor
(Myriam, Teo, Bart, Edward - I hope you'll apply again, Ralf, Mark, Sam, Sven
- think about it!), and also to add you
10 matches
Mail list logo
