danders marked 4 inline comments as done.
danders added a comment.
Fixed some of your comments, I'll wait for more before updating.
INLINE COMMENTS
> staniek wrote in KoResourcePaths.cpp:43
> Can we drop the "ko" legacy here?
>
> Or even: do we really need a category per class/namespace or p
staniek requested changes to this revision.
staniek added a reviewer: staniek.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
REPOSITORY
rCALLIGRA Calligra
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D2577
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To:
staniek added a comment.
Nice, some early notes.
INLINE COMMENTS
> KoResourcePaths.cpp:43
> +{
> +static const QLoggingCategory
> category("calligra.lib.widgets.koresourcepaths");
> +return category;
Can we drop the "ko" legacy here?
Or even: do we really need a category per class/
Maybe adding calligra-devel-list as a reviewer makes the patch more public.
At least I received the review notification but it was directed to me
(as observer?) not to the calligra-devel email.
On 29 August 2016 at 11:26, Dag wrote:
> Add a patch for review some time ago, but have had no answers
staniek added a reviewer: Calligra-Devel-list.
REPOSITORY
rCALLIGRA Calligra
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D2577
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: danders, #calligra:_3.0, Calligra-Devel-list
Cc: staniek
Add a patch for review some time ago, but have had no answers, so start
to wonder if reviewers has bee notified at all.
Thought I added all, but can't really find out through phabricator, so
consider this a ping :)
Also, if somebody has a good workflow for this, please give me some
hints!
Ch
