---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111335/#review35907
---
Almost there, thanks.
I'm surprised by the dispatch (to call o
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111335/
---
(Updated July 13, 2013, 1:30 a.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
-
On Fri, July 12, 2013 4:42 pm, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> * there were 2 main reasons the branched-kdelibs shifted back to master-
> kdelibis:
> * people were too stubborn and too (willfully) uninformed to understand
> why this was a useful thing and just kept pelting it with stop energy at
> ev
On Friday, July 12, 2013 05:52:02 PM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 15:34:43 Michael Jansen wrote:
> > Because of that it should be announced. BIG TIME. I am not hopeful because
>
> agreed. so what i’d like to see is a definitive listing of all the places
> that this should be
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111480/#review35898
---
plasma/generic/applets/notifications/contents/ui/Notifications
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 23:45:39 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> If someone wants to do a 4.12 release from kde-workspace module it can be
> branched from the 4.11 branch.
fwiw, i take no responsibility for branches other than the 4.11 one. if
someone feels the burning urge to make a release 4.12, i’d
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 15:34:43 Michael Jansen wrote:
> Because of that it should be announced. BIG TIME. I am not hopeful because
agreed. so what i’d like to see is a definitive listing of all the places that
this should be announced and in what form. since i’ve gotten this wrong enough
ti
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 22:39:29 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> There'll have to be (minor) patches to kde-workspace (you cannot keep
> shipping known and fixable crashes), thus new tarballs and shipping kdelibs
> 4.13.2, workspace 4.11.12 ("depending" on kdelibs 4.13.2) and kde-runtime
> 4.13.2 does
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:37:39 Frank Reininghaus wrote
> Merging frameworks into master in kdelibs has the following
> disadvantages from my point of view (besides the "makes it harder for
i agree; the window for doing this closed a while ago. we’ve made some poor
decisions that we need to l
On Friday, July 12, 2013 10:19:45 Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 07:41:37 AM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > I agree that this is
> >
> > something we learned from kdelibs that we need to keep the releases going
> > even if they do not contain new features.
>
> With kdelibs didn't
On Friday, July 12, 2013 05:27:53 PM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 14:23:24 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I've mentioned before in this thread, we're going to look into
> > providing tip of the stable branch packages that people can test so that
> > there is more testing before t
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 07:44:35 PM Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > We need to get away from "it's not stable enough" to "it's stable". The
> > only way is to increase the testing and make everything we can do to have
> > an awesome and rocking .0. I think Alex approach is the right one.
> > Redu
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:28:10 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> This isn't the first time upstream KDE developers have suggested offloading
> the boring upstream maintenance work to distributions.
do you think it’s because it is boring? no. it’s because if when this work is
put on the shoulders of
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 17:16:55 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-07-10, Àlex Fiestas wrote:
> > I can't fight with distros, and I don't want to fight with them. If
> > distros
> > need .5 .6 and .200 so be it, just they will have to do them themselves
> > (and I hope we can make the process smoo
On Friday, July 12, 2013 10:12:41 Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 06:53:51 PM andrea diamantini wrote:
> > What about a single official development branch?
> > Just use two branches:
> > - master branch (stable)
> > - kdevel branch (devel)
>
> The natural question to come is: why
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 01:06:59 PM Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:53:50 Philip Muskovac wrote:
> > On Monday 08 July 2013 18:59:12 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > On Mon, July 8, 2013 17:45:10 Philip Muskovac wrote:
> > > > What would at least make my life easier here would be
Heya folk!
One of our resident usability experts, Björn Balazs, will team up with yours
truly to host a Usability Workshop on Monday at Akademy, provided we can find
people interested in them.
The plan will be more or less as follows:
* We center the session around one or a small number of appl
Àlex Fiestas wrote:
> already out there (this already happened), what is happening here is that
> a HUGE release with a LOT of changes won't even get to the users of that
> distribution at least for another distribution cycle. This usually happens
Don't forget that at least the bigger distros off
henry miller wrote:
> latest, but those will never get beyond a .3 release. Distributions that
> want more stability can work together to submit patches to the long term
Bear in mind that not all distros have packagers with coding skills. Also,
maintenance of patches downstream can be problemat
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111335/#review35879
---
Looks good. I share your concern about the new public API, how
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 07:41:37 AM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> I agree that this is
> something we learned from kdelibs that we need to keep the releases going
> even if they do not contain new features.
With kdelibs didn't we switch back to branch and tag it from master even
though master is
On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:53:50 Philip Muskovac wrote:
> On Monday 08 July 2013 18:59:12 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > On Mon, July 8, 2013 17:45:10 Philip Muskovac wrote:
> > > What would at least make my life easier here would be a way to easily
> > > get a
> > > list of all patches that were applie
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 06:53:51 PM andrea diamantini wrote:
> What about a single official development branch?
> Just use two branches:
> - master branch (stable)
> - kdevel branch (devel)
The natural question to come is: why isn't master the devel branch? :)
Ok, let me reformulate again: did
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111480/
---
(Updated July 12, 2013, 7:08 a.m.)
Review request for kde-workspace and Ma
24 matches
Mail list logo
