---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109393/#review29164
---
Thanks for the effort. That's my partial review. I started with
On 13 March 2013 19:56, Shantanu Tushar Jha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During the Calligra sprint last week, we were discussing over Calligra
> Active's future. One good thing that came along is that we started work on
> creating reusable Calligra QML components that can be used in isolation to
> render doc
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Thursday 14 March 2013 00:26:28 Shantanu Tushar Jha wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > During the Calligra sprint last week, we were discussing over Calligra
> > Active's future. One good thing that came along is that we started work
> on
> > creat
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109393/
---
(Updated March 13, 2013, 7:24 p.m.)
Review request for Calligra.
Changes
On Thursday 14 March 2013 00:26:28 Shantanu Tushar Jha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During the Calligra sprint last week, we were discussing over Calligra
> Active's future. One good thing that came along is that we started work on
> creating reusable Calligra QML components that can be used in isolation to
>
Hi,
During the Calligra sprint last week, we were discussing over Calligra
Active's future. One good thing that came along is that we started work on
creating reusable Calligra QML components that can be used in isolation to
render documents, and perform basic viewing operations. This will help in
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109389/
---
(Updated March 13, 2013, 12:26 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109378/
---
(Updated March 13, 2013, 12:26 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been m
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 Mar, Lukast dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> do we have some mechanism to say : expect_fail ?
> That would be better solution and the test would "pass"
Yes -- but that's tricky with this test, since it's one test that runs on a lot
of data, and only some data is broken. I think th
Hi,
do we have some mechanism to say : expect_fail ?
That would be better solution and the test would "pass"
Lukas
2013/3/12 Boudewijn Rempt :
> Git commit bbd1958cbf6a628297fe65a3c3e15d7dd69b9a74 by Boudewijn Rempt.
> Committed on 12/03/2013 at 13:02.
> Pushed by rempt into branch 'master'.
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo