On Sunday 31 August 2014 19:01:01 Harald Sitter wrote:
> That being said, IMHO it would be perfectly reasonable to deprecate
> the signal
OK I did that now, after reverting.
I guess you're right, holding our SC/BC promise even in (IMHO) theoretical
cases is more important than a bit of clean up
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 August 2014 16:29:23 Harald Sitter wrote:
>> alohas,
>>
>> it would appear to me that a recent change in kio [1] was rather,
>> very, entirely source incompatible (one could argue binary but let's
>> not go there).
>>
>> Say I had
On Tuesday 26 August 2014 16:29:23 Harald Sitter wrote:
> alohas,
>
> it would appear to me that a recent change in kio [1] was rather,
> very, entirely source incompatible (one could argue binary but let's
> not go there).
>
> Say I had the following in my application using kio 5.0/1:
>
> conne
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Harald Sitter wrote:
> alohas,
>
> it would appear to me that a recent change in kio [1] was rather,
> very, entirely source incompatible (one could argue binary but let's
> not go there).
>
> Say I had the following in my application using kio 5.0/1:
>
> connect(c
alohas,
it would appear to me that a recent change in kio [1] was rather,
very, entirely source incompatible (one could argue binary but let's
not go there).
Say I had the following in my application using kio 5.0/1:
connect(copyjob, &CopyJob::aboutToCreate, this, &MyThing::onABoutToCreate);
my
