Hi everyone,
As you probably noticed, I'm allocating less and less time for KDE
contributions these days, basically only taking care of the KF releases.
I think my old-timer knowledge can still be useful for some archaeological
questions ("why did we do things that way?"), but please don't add
conversion. But
as for any other tooling, there are and will be errors; either by me tagging a
license header with the wrong SPDX expression or a simple programming mistake.
Thus, I would like to see the first couple of reviews as beta-test candidates
and would be very happy about an intense
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit R304:9d1ae1544808: Turn KNewStuffQuick::CommentsModel into a
SortFilterProxy for reviews (authored by leinir).
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25272?vs
davidedmundson accepted this revision.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
BRANCH
allow-filtering-comments-by-rating-state (branched from master)
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25272
To: leinir, #plasma, #knewstuff, #frameworks, davided
leinir added a comment.
Ping?
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25272
To: leinir, #plasma, #knewstuff, #frameworks
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
leinir edited the test plan for this revision.
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25272
To: leinir, #plasma, #knewstuff, #frameworks
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
leinir edited the test plan for this revision.
leinir added reviewers: Plasma, KNewStuff, Frameworks.
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25272
To: leinir, #plasma, #knewstuff, #frameworks
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
a rating
(which means we consider it a review), and optionally to include
the replies to those reviews.
The filtering options are added as contextual actions on the
comments page, so they easily integrate with the Kirigami-esque
navigation methods
REPOSITORY
R304 KNewStuff
BRANCH
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 3:11 PM, David Faure wrote:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125497/
> ("KSycoca: spot dirs from the future, and `touch` them to avoid constant
> ksycoca rebuilds")
I will need bit of help from our packagers to package it.. Once this
is packaged I can test it. I tried t
I am currently blocked for releasing KF 5.15 because I think these bugfixes
should be in, and they need review:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125497/
("KSycoca: spot dirs from the future, and `touch` them to avoid constant
ksycoca rebuilds")
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125504/
("KServi
On Sat, June 21, 2014 19:34:21 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Saturday 21 June 2014 11:22:28 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > On Thu, June 19, 2014 23:21:22 Marco Martin wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to
> > > always
> > > asking for a review, what abou
On Saturday 21 June 2014 11:22:28 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Thu, June 19, 2014 23:21:22 Marco Martin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> > asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding
> > an hook that accept
On Thu, June 19, 2014 23:21:22 Marco Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding an
> hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
>
> I have bee
x27;m doing much/any
> frameworks developement otoh).
There's still the possibility to do like in Qt "Reviewed-By: Trust-me". The
point of "forcing" reviews is to make sure people asks themselves the question
in the first place.
Regards.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.i
t; list because of review requests.
> >
> > Well, the policy doesn't necessarily mean going through reviewboard. As
> > pointed by Luigi "Reviewed by:" is also allowed, and that can be through a
> > pastebin over IRC or pair programming or whatever you want to get
El Divendres, 20 de juny de 2014, a les 01:46:10, Aleix Pol va escriure:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Marco Martin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> > asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding
On Friday 20 June 2014 19:25:19 Alex Merry wrote:
> On 19/06/14 22:21, Marco Martin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> > asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding
> > an hook that accepts pushes only if
On 19/06/14 22:21, Marco Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding an
> hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
>
> I have been guilty t
ir programming or whatever you want to get something
> more synchronous and direct as a review. Reviewboard is really for the
> asynchronous case (no relevant people available) or "I'm not sure what I'm
> doing" case. The rest could be done through other means of reviews
On Thursday 19 June 2014 23:38:05 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Marco Martin ha scritto:
> > Hi all,
> > I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> > asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding
> > an hook that accepts pushes only if the comm
viewboard. As
pointed by Luigi "Reviewed by:" is also allowed, and that can be through a
pastebin over IRC or pair programming or whatever you want to get something
more synchronous and direct as a review. Reviewboard is really for the
asynchronous case (no relevant people available) o
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Marco Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding
> an
> hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
>
> I ha
2014-06-19 18:21 GMT-03:00 Marco Martin :
> Hi all,
> I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding an
> hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
>
> I have been guilty t
Marco Martin ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
> asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding an
> hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
... or "Reviewed by:"
https://communit
Hi all,
I was thinking, since the policy for committing in frameworks is to always
asking for a review, what about on repositories under frameworks/* adding an
hook that accepts pushes only if the comment has a REVIEW: line?
I have been guilty too many times of not respecting that, mostly for no
On Sunday 16 March 2014 10:16:17 David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 23 February 2014 16:12:58 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> I tend to agree. Initially it was a good thing because most frameworks
> committers were newcomers to that code, but by now some of them know what
> they are doing :-)
> OTOH it work
On Sunday 23 February 2014 16:12:58 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dissabte, 22 de febrer de 2014, a les 16:52:38, Luigi Toscano va
escriure:
> > Hi all,
> > these are the steps of plan for bumping the default DocBook XML version to
> > 4.5 while keeping the compatibility on the old 4.2-based when
27 matches
Mail list logo
