On Sunday, August 16, 2015 11:21:00 PM David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> > have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> > remains unique. It migh
David Faure ha scritto:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
>> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
>> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
>> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there
On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there would be no way
> for a sub
On Sun, August 16, 2015 17:48:59 John Layt wrote:
> On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> > (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> > shouldn't be called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release
> > things. Nowadays we basically have 4 product
On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> shouldn't be
> called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release things. Nowadays we
> basically have 4 products (frameworks, plasma, applications, extragear?),
> pr
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/124105/
---
(Updated Aug. 16, 2015, 1:14 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been ma
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/124772/
---
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
Repository: kservice
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/124736/
---
(Updated Aug. 16, 2015, 11:14 a.m.)
Status
--
This change has been m
> On Aug. 16, 2015, 9:20 a.m., Alex Merry wrote:
> > Looks good, but there's a couple of debugging lines you've left in that
> > should be removed.
Woa thanks for pointing out the debug lines It shows again that everything
should be reviewed.
- Patrick
On 2015-08-13 09:57, Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
Hi,
My experience with MSVC 2013 was that you even need at least Update 4
for initializer lists to work properly, which was released quite
recently iirc.
And even then, initializer lists don't work in all circumstances
(specifically in member initi
On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
>
> Overview of Proposed Fix
>
>
> What we would like to do instead is the classic Comp. Sci. fix: Another layer
> of indirection.
>
> In this case, we'd like to re-organize the `kde-build-metadata` to map to the
> sa
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/124736/#review83860
---
Ship it!
Looks good, but there's a couple of debugging lines
12 matches
Mail list logo
