Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Alex Merry
On 21/03/11 20:17, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 21 March 2011, Ian Monroe wrote: Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Wasn't the conclusion more like going with the longer name, i.e. KDE/4.6 ? That's what I u

Re: Review Request: Fix for bug 264444: ksplashx shows garbage when background image does not properly cover entire screen

2011-03-21 Thread Ivo Anjo
> On March 17, 2011, 10:28 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > the root problem is that the image does not cover the background entirely, > > and therefore *that* should be fixed instead of coming up with workarounds > > to disguise it. i made some pretty sophisticated cropping/scaling code in

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Tom Albers
- Original Message - > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > > I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, > > correct me > > > you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players > also > emphasize independence and self-motivation.

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, correct me > you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players also emphasize independence and self-motivation. i.e., the ability to complete day-to-day task

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Richard Moore
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:> it's one thing not to know everything inside out and another not to > understand what a ref actually is ... > Please define it - I don't. Rich.

Re: Calligra DBus Issues

2011-03-21 Thread Rohan Garg
Hi I just talked to Marco and understood why this is done, but I am still curious as to how to access the interface, what would be the correct way to do this? Regards Rohan Garg On Mar 22, 2011 1:54 AM, "Jaroslaw Staniek" wrote: > On 21 March 2011 20:37, Rohan Garg wrote: >> Hi >> I currently se

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Albert Astals Cid
A Dilluns, 21 de març de 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen va escriure: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:06:51PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > > Git might be known by you inside out, but please note that is not the > > case for everyone. > > it's one thing not to know everything inside out and another not to > un

Re: Calligra DBus Issues

2011-03-21 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 21 de March de 2011 21:23:50 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > On 21 March 2011 20:37, Rohan Garg wrote: > > Hi > > I currently see a huge issue with the naming of the Calligra DBus > > issue in place currently, it seems that it uses the pid of Calligra > > appended to the dbus interface.Due to

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Tom Albers
- Original Message - > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:06:51PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > > Git might be known by you inside out, but please note that is not > > the > > case for everyone. > > > it's one thing not to know everything inside out and another not to > understand what a ref actually

Re: Calligra DBus Issues

2011-03-21 Thread Jaroslaw Staniek
On 21 March 2011 20:37, Rohan Garg wrote: > Hi > I currently see a huge issue with the naming of the Calligra DBus > issue in place currently, it seems that it uses the pid of Calligra > appended to the dbus interface.Due to this one cannot have a standard > dbus call to calligra and will have to

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 21 March 2011, Ian Monroe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:17, Ian Monroe wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:09, Andreas Hartmetz wrote: > >> On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >>> Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in >

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:06:51PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > Git might be known by you inside out, but please note that is not the > case for everyone. > it's one thing not to know everything inside out and another not to understand what a ref actually is ...

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:09:23PM -0500, Ian Monroe wrote: > (making sure local branches track the correct remote branches, > nothing to be done here. only caveat: if people actually pushed different things to the branches, we already have internal 4.6 forks. means you have to git merge the dying

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Ian Monroe
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:41, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: >> Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and >> *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? >> > reclone? hello? >  git fetch >  git checkout 4.6 Yea, o

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Tom Albers
- Original Message - > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > > Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and > > *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? > > > reclone? hello? I think I've stated my question in a way that makes clear that I d

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: > Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and > *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? > reclone? hello? git fetch git checkout 4.6

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Tom Albers
- Original Message - > Come to think of it, perhaps it's the Release Team who should have > final say > on the branch naming, they may have requirements that we haven't > thought of? I think I can say on behalf of the release-team, that we don't care much as long as it is consistent over

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread John Layt
On Monday 21 Mar 2011 14:19:09 Ian Monroe wrote: > Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) Yay, thanks Ben! Mental note to buy Ben yet another beer at Akademy. > I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Do we know what the consequences are? Does this damage th

Re: new kdevelop sessions runner for review

2011-03-21 Thread Sebastian Kügler
Hej, On Monday, March 21, 2011 14:16:37 Pino Toscano wrote: > Alle lunedì 21 marzo 2011, Sebastian Kügler ha scritto: > > I've just committed a branch of kdeplasma-addons containing a new > > runner plugin. It reads kdevelop sessions and makes them available > > via their name to krunner. You just

Re: 4.6 branches created in git again

2011-03-21 Thread Ian Monroe
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:17, Ian Monroe wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:09, Andreas Hartmetz wrote: >> On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: >>> Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in >>> places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kde

Re: new kdevelop sessions runner for review

2011-03-21 Thread Pino Toscano
Hi, Alle lunedì 21 marzo 2011, Sebastian Kügler ha scritto: > I've just committed a branch of kdeplasma-addons containing a new > runner plugin. It reads kdevelop sessions and makes them available > via their name to krunner. You just pull up krunner, enter your > session name, and start it. Shou

new kdevelop sessions runner for review

2011-03-21 Thread Sebastian Kügler
Hi all, I've just committed a branch of kdeplasma-addons containing a new runner plugin. It reads kdevelop sessions and makes them available via their name to krunner. You just pull up krunner, enter your session name, and start it. The code is adapted from the kate session runner, also in kdep