Hi,
I'm trying to get kdelibs unit tests to run in a clean and headless
environment (for automated testing). I'm starting an X server, dbus, and
kdeinit by hand.
Currently kded (started by kdeinit) is failing to start up if I'm running it
for the first time and there is currently no ~/.kde dir
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 06:19:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>> The Moratorium would extend to all components of the KDE SC
>>> distribution. Hence kde-core-devel.
>>
>> imho this is impossib
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> First Phonon.
> Phonon GStreamer - whilst installable, crashes applications on startup
> - and is therefore unusable. This effectively removes the capability
> to have multimedia playback using a KDE application.
I have used Phonon GStreamer
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> > development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> > also use SDO master. But for
A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, John Layt va escriure:
> We discussed translation briefly at Platform 11 and Qt moving to or
> supporting .po is something we really want to push for at QCS. I really
> hope we have some people knowledgable about translation at QCS able to
> argue the point, otherwise ple
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101530/#review3753
---
Ship it!
I think that looks good.
- Michael
On June 7, 2011
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101523/#review3752
---
Looks good but i am wondering if it wouldn't be necessary to com
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101520/#review3751
---
Why don't you fix KKeyServer to return the correct results inste
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> > development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> > also use SDO master. But
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2011 10:51:29 Manuel "Sput" Nickschas wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
> > either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
> > frameworks use p
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2011 00:38:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Right, however there's also a plan ATM to get the settings between KLocale
> and QLocale shared. John is working on that right now, so it depends a bit
> on the outcome, in any cases the situation is likely to improve on that
> particular point.
On 07.06.11 11:51:29, Manuel "Sput" Nickschas wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>
> > This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
> > either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
> > frameworks use pure bas
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
> either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
> frameworks use pure based Qt/Linguist solutions which does not fit either in
> what sc
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101530/
---
Review request for kdelibs and Michael Jansen.
Summary
---
Make this
On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 08:11:59 Tom Albers wrote:
> That's not what is happening. It's a workflow for the frameworks, the rest
> of KDE is invited to follow. So you still have to find out for each single
> project how they prefer to use git and branches. (afaics)
we're between a rock and a hard
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:11:59 AM Tom Albers wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
...
> > > a documented git workflow is new, but needed.
> >
> > Yes, yes, yes. 100 %. We really need that. For git newbies (like me)
> > and to
> > avoid total chaos. And so that it stays possible to contrib
On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 08:39:58 Inge Wallin wrote:
> So a well defined API that applications could use, and a well isolated way
> to include a set of implementations would be nice. We are dealing with
the best way to make this happen is to create a concrete plan and propose it.
for inspiratio
- Original Message -
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 02:00:20 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2011 19:41:15 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> > > > * all new features will be developed using the recommended git
> > > > workflow
> > > >
> > > > (pending publication; Cornelius is work
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:32:09 AM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
> > released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
> > undermines our very development model.
>
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101515/#review3736
---
both of the classes that need this are in the kdeui library, so
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable
> if SDO were in KDE's git.
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 02:00:20 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2011 19:41:15 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
> > > * all new features will be developed using the recommended git
> > > workflow
> > >
> > > (pending publication; Cornelius is working on that one);
> > >
> > > Those rules
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 07:53:28 Tom Albers wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
> > great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
>
> I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that
- Original Message -
> IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
> great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that states that you
can only depend on stuff that is available in the new
A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> On Tuesday 7 June 2011 01:26:17 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> > > Well, obviously a Tier 1 framework would have to use tr() instead of
> > > i18n() for its translation needs.
> >
> > Are we s
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
> released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
> undermines our very development model.
In my opinion, almost always needing the development version of e.g. G
26 matches
Mail list logo
