Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

- Ursprüngliche Mitteilung - > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Kevin Kofler vàreu escriure: > > > 1. This puts kdelibs 4 into maintenance mode even before KDE > > > Frameworks 5 is anywhere near a release, let alone versions of the > > > workspace and appl

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 5: Add support for trying multiple proxies to KIO HTTP

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102696/#review6938 --- This review has been submitted with commit 4a1e32abdd591d63cd1d

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 4: More proxy changes and fixes for KProtocolManager

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102691/#review6937 --- This review has been submitted with commit 2812a1300544b9e8e7bd

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:47:55 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: ... > That is actually Dirk's plan (or at least that is what i remember from the > Release Team BoF in Berlin). ... Are the results of this BoF published anywhere? Scott K

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 5: Add support for trying multiple proxies to KIO HTTP

> On Sept. 29, 2011, 8:08 p.m., Andreas Hartmetz wrote: > > kioslave/http/http.cpp, line 4122 > > > > > > This looks like a hack and is, I think, surprising. It is a part of > > connection setup, where all the oth

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:47:22 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Scott Kitterman vàreu escriure: > > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:01:00 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Heinz Wiesinger wrote: > > > > From what I remember from

Re: Review Request: Show removable media in Dolphin's "Copy To" and "Move To" context menus

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102657/#review6934 --- The places model is dynamic (as devices can come and go anytime)

Re: Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Kevin Kofler vàreu escriure: > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Kevin Kofler vàreu escriure: > >> 1. This puts kdelibs 4 into maintenance mode even before KDE > >> Frameworks 5 is anywhere near a release, let alone versions of the > >>

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Albert Astals Cid wrote: > A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Kevin Kofler vàreu escriure: >> 1. This puts kdelibs 4 into maintenance mode even before KDE Frameworks 5 >> is anywhere near a release, let alone versions of the workspace and >> applications actually using it. As a result, we will fail

Re: Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Andras Mantia vàreu escriure: > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 21:43:34 Stefan Majewsky wrote: > > Without judging on the other arguments which look very reasonable to > > me... > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Kofler > > wrote: > > > 2. It will be con

Re: Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Scott Kitterman vàreu escriure: > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:01:00 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Heinz Wiesinger wrote: > > > From what I remember from the desktop summit the picture you draw > > > here > > > is > > > quite an ex

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

A Dijous, 29 de setembre de 2011, Kevin Kofler vàreu escriure: > Hi, > > as you probably already know, a decision was recently made that kdelibs 4.7 > would be the last 4.x release series of kdelibs, and work would be ongoing > in the 5.0 (frameworks) and 4.7 (KDE/4.7) branches only. I think this

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 21:43:34 Stefan Majewsky wrote: > Without judging on the other arguments which look very reasonable to > me... > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > 2. It will be confusing to our users, and even to some packagers, to > > have a KDE SC 4.8 on k

Re: Review Request: Fix KPasswdServer usage of KWallet

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102729/#review6926 --- Sorry, but this is simply wrong. There is a specific reason why

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 4: More proxy changes and fixes for KProtocolManager

> On Sept. 25, 2011, 2:20 p.m., Andreas Hartmetz wrote: > > I'd actually be interested to hear which testing you did. > > > > The "ResolveHostNamesBeforeProxyCheck" option seems strange. In which > > situations is this supposed to be set / not set? > > Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > The "Resolve

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 4: More proxy changes and fixes for KProtocolManager

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102691/#review6927 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Andreas Hartmetz On Sept. 25, 2011, 4:15

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 5: Add support for trying multiple proxies to KIO HTTP

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102696/#review6928 --- Ship it! Ship It! kioslave/http/http.cpp

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Without judging on the other arguments which look very reasonable to me... On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > 2. It will be confusing to our users, and even to some packagers, to have a > KDE SC 4.8 on kdelibs 4.7. [...] ...what exactly stops you from advertising kdelibs 4.7.

Re: Review Request: little faster sycoca

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102723/#review6920 --- This review has been submitted with commit 0025316378a26152b866

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:01:00 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Heinz Wiesinger wrote: > > From what I remember from the desktop summit the picture you draw here > > is > > quite an exaggeration of what is actually happening. > > > > kdelibs 4.7 is meant to be froz

Re: Review Request: little faster sycoca

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102723/#review6919 --- Ship it! - Josef Weidendorfer On Sept. 29, 2011, 6:25 p.m., J

Re: Review Request: little faster sycoca

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102723/ --- (Updated Sept. 29, 2011, 6:25 p.m.) Review request for kdelibs. Changes

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday 29 September 2011, Kevin Kofler wrote: > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Heinz Wiesinger wrote: ... > > The KDE Frameworks 5.0 development is not meant to take forever. In fact > > I think it's meant to be finished around early 2012, which would leave > > us with a frozen kdelibs for on

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday 29 September 2011, Heinz Wiesinger wrote: > From what I remember from the desktop summit the picture you draw here is > quite an exaggeration of what is actually happening. > > kdelibs 4.7 is meant to be frozen for new features, but not for bugfixes. > Bugfix releases of kdelibs-4.7 ha

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Scott Kitterman wrote: > We did this in Kubuntu and it was confusing. It was also technically > challenging. Speaking as someone investing a lot of time in trying to do > a high quality job of distributing KDE to end users: Please. Never, ever, > do this to us again. +1 > The transition from k

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Markus Slopianka wrote: > On Donnerstag 29 September 2011 14:01:50 Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> 2. It will be confusing to our users, and even to some packagers, to have >> a KDE SC 4.8 on kdelibs 4.7. > > Since almost exactly 2 years we (esp. the promo team) are communicating > that Platform/Framew

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 03:27:58 PM Markus Slopianka wrote: > On Donnerstag 29 September 2011 14:01:50 Kevin Kofler wrote: > > 2. It will be confusing to our users, and even to some packagers, to > > have a KDE SC 4.8 on kdelibs 4.7. > > Since almost exactly 2 years we (esp. the promo team

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Rolf Eike Beer wrote: (re the support for spellchecking with hunspell) > Given that it is now proven and tested code, who stops you committing it > into KDE/3.5 branch? What for? There are no plans to do a 3.5.11 or 3.6.0 release, ever, and the one major distribution known to sometimes ship rele

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

On Donnerstag 29 September 2011 14:01:50 Kevin Kofler wrote: > 2. It will be confusing to our users, and even to some packagers, to have a > KDE SC 4.8 on kdelibs 4.7. Since almost exactly 2 years we (esp. the promo team) are communicating that Platform/Frameworks, Applications and Workspaces ar

Re: The case for a kdelibs 4.8

> For example, when we switched our default > spell checker in Fedora from aspell to hunspell in Fedora 9 (i.e. 4.0 > era), I > had to add support for hunspell to kdelibs3, or our users would have had > to > install 2 spell checkers to use KDE apps! (Even several apps in the > default > KDE install

Re: mentor needed for start-up optimization Season of KDE student

Thanks so much Martin and Dario. I'll get you in contact with the student. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher KDE Community Working Group member http://kde.org - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher

The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Hi, as you probably already know, a decision was recently made that kdelibs 4.7 would be the last 4.x release series of kdelibs, and work would be ongoing in the 5.0 (frameworks) and 4.7 (KDE/4.7) branches only. I think this is a huge mistake, for several reasons (the "TL/DR" crowd can stop rig

Re: Review Request: little faster sycoca

On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > What happens if inPos is -1? pos becomes 0 then. Then we iterate over the > whole list just to do "if (... && pos != 0)" which will never be true. So for > this case (inPos == -1) the whole function can be avoided at all as it will > never

Re: KDE Frameworks Documentation

Hello Romain, Thank you for the constructive answers. :) >In a case like that, ask the maintainer(s). Usually, developers know the >code of their program :) . >Also, feel free to ask for help on IRC or through the bugzilla. Sure, this can be done. But if every (possible) contributor asks the mai