On Wed, Apr 29, 2015, at 12:33 AM, Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Christian Mollekopf
> wrote:
> >
> > I may be a bit extreme that way, but QDateTime::isValid() would be a
> > blocker
> > for the isDateOnly() functionality IMO.
> >
>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 08:47 PM, John Layt wrote:
> On 27 April 2015 at 21:17, Christian Mollekopf
> wrote:
>
Hey John,
> > 1. add isDateOnly functionality to QDateTime
> ...
> > Opinions following:
> > 1. I'm not sure whether it semantically makes sens
Hey Aleix,
>
> What about considering the port to be like:
> QDateTime().time().isNull()?
>
> Even QDateTime::isValid documentation mentions that the date and the
> time need to be valid, therefore the time can be invalid.
>
> With that assumption, I'd say we could even implement
> QDateTime::i
Hey,
KDateTime used to have a date-only functionality, that QDateTime is
lacking. The problem with that is that we need to find a new solution
for interfaces that allow to set/get either QDate or QDateTime.
One such interface is KCalCore::Event::start(). For the sake of
discussion getters are mor
> On Jan. 26, 2015, 9:41 a.m., Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > Looks reasonable to me. I'll apply the patch locally and test it for a
> > while.
>
> Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> This patch brings the original problem back, that shared folders do not
>
> On Jan. 26, 2015, 9:41 a.m., Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > Looks reasonable to me. I'll apply the patch locally and test it for a
> > while.
This patch brings the original problem back, that shared folders do not appear
until something causes a dataChanged signal (us
test it for a while.
- Christian Mollekopf
On Jan. 25, 2015, 6:51 p.m., David Faure wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard
problem originally addressed and
seems to fix the crash I was having.
- Christian Mollekopf
On Jan. 23, 2015, 6:11 p.m., David Faure wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboa
119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
ilterproxymodel.cpp
6d6563166bcc9637d826f577925c47d5ecbef2cd
kdeui/tests/CMakeLists.txt f661b9177a6e0e1de7f49bc3cb9fbb5e04f427c1
kdeui/tests/krecursivefilterproxymodeltest.cpp PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
ilterproxymodel.cpp
6d6563166bcc9637d826f577925c47d5ecbef2cd
kdeui/tests/CMakeLists.txt f661b9177a6e0e1de7f49bc3cb9fbb5e04f427c1
kdeui/tests/krecursivefilterproxymodeltest.cpp PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/#review74519
-------
On Jan. 22, 2015, 3:11 p.m., Christian Mollekopf wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-ma
; > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/diff/1/?file=310594#file310594line159>
> >
> > I would also expect 3 signal emissions here
same reason as above
- Christian
---
This is an automatically generated e
On Tuesday 23 December 2014 13.21:37 Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00:20:18 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As has been made evident in the prior thread there are quite a few
> > interesting ideas floating around about what our Git infrastructure
> > should be capable
On Monday 29 December 2014 11.23:19 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Based on the current feedback:
>
> 1) It seems people see no use in clone repositories.
> 2) Little commentary has been made on the merits of scratch
> repositories, with some dismissing them as pointless.
>
> Therefore sysadm
On Wednesday 24 December 2014 00.04:22 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the other thread has gotten a bit congested with various threads, I
> thought I would split up the topics to make things a bit easier to
> manage.
>
> The first seems the least contentious: allowing all developers to
> de
On Wednesday 10 December 2014 16.53:09 Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 10:28:59 CEST, Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > * pull requests/the webinterface: reviewboard is awesome for single
> > patches
> > every now and then, it's rather useless when you
On Wednesday 10 December 2014 15.27:31 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It has come to my attention that some developers have "issues" with
> KDE infrastructure in certain areas. This is the first time i've heard
> of these "problems" and to my knowledge nobody has ever spoken to
> sysadmin regar
119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
CMakeLists.txt f661b9177a6e0e1de7f49bc3cb9fbb5e04f427c1
kdeui/tests/krecursivefilterproxymodeltest.cpp PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
427c1
kdeui/tests/krecursivefilterproxymodeltest.cpp PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
e.org/r/120119/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Christian Mollekopf
22 matches
Mail list logo
