On 17.11.11 00:14:23, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 11:31 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 16:28:21 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2011 04:08 PM, Thomas L�bking wrote:
> >>> If one wants a feature in future KDE versions and such fork wouldn't
> >>> exist,
On 11/16/2011 11:31 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 16:28:21 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 04:08 PM, Thomas L�bking wrote:
>>> If one wants a feature in future KDE versions and such fork wouldn't
>>> exist, one would not add it at all rather than to the framewo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/
---
(Updated Nov. 16, 2011, 8:55 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Descripti
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/
---
Review request for kdelibs.
Description
---
Several small fixes to al
Hello,
Probably I've missed something, or what I propose is unpractical (or too
late), but here I go, anyway:
If the frameworks branch still depends on Qt 4,
Is it possible to have a "public" version of it once the
refactoring has been completed, but before it depends on Qt 5?
It could be used as
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> the best way to "deal with it" is not to consider it a fork of kdelibs but
> the next version of kdelibs (that's what it is) and help out with it :)
>
> another way of putting is: please don't fighting your own teammates (the
> ones, in thi
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 09:48:15 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> > So why have this discussion on a separate list, at all? Isn't that
> > just the� sort of topic that kde-core-devel is for?
>
> I agree...
>
> Andras
+1
Alex
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 16:28:21 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 04:08 PM, Thomas L�bking wrote:
> > If one wants a feature in future KDE versions and such fork wouldn't
> > exist, one would not add it at all rather than to the frameworks?
> > Doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.
>
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103148/#review8232
---
This review has been submitted with commit
2a991767b466d536a99a
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 09:48:15 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> So why have this discussion on a separate list, at all? Isn't that
> just the� sort of topic that kde-core-devel is for?
I agree...
Andras
A Dimecres, 16 de novembre de 2011, Thomas Friedrichsmeier vàreu escriure:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > In case someone is interested since it has never mentioned in this list,
> > there is a frameworks mailing list at kde-frameworks-devel
> > https://mail.kde.org/m
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> In case someone is interested since it has never mentioned in this list,
> there is a frameworks mailing list at kde-frameworks-devel
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
So why have this discussion on a separate lis
12 matches
Mail list logo
