Re: Review Request 113205: Make KJob::result public for the new signal/slot syntax.

On Oct. 11, 2013, 9:51 p.m., Mark Gaiser wrote: > > We are here making a 'hole' for people to do 'bad things' that wasn't > > possible in the past. I'm not sure we want that. > > Mark Gaiser wrote: > Interesting. > So that mean we simply can't use the new signal/slot syntax because of

Re: Review Request 113205: Make KJob::result public for the new signal/slot syntax.

On Oct. 11, 2013, 9:51 p.m., Mark Gaiser wrote: > > We are here making a 'hole' for people to do 'bad things' that wasn't > > possible in the past. I'm not sure we want that. Interesting. So that mean we simply can't use the new signal/slot syntax because of it? That would seem rather strange

Re: Review Request 113205: Make KJob::result public for the new signal/slot syntax.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113205/#review41570 --- tier1/kcoreaddons/src/lib/jobs/kjob.h

Review Request 113205: Make KJob::result public for the new signal/slot syntax.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113205/ --- Review request for KDE Frameworks and kdelibs. Repository: kdelibs Descr

Re: Packaging KDE Foundation 5 frameworks

On Thursday 10 October 2013 17:56:56 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 10 October 2013, Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013 19:26:48 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013, Lubomir Rintel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I know it's a bit too early, b