Re: Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Saturday 12 January 2013 00:52:36 Luca Beltrame wrote: > In data venerdì 11 gennaio 2013 22:58:49, Martin Gräßlin ha scritto: > > Granted, not everyone is using Kubuntu, but I do think that other distros > > could do similar (not looking into a particular direction, but there's a > > Geeko on my

[KDE Bugtracking System] REMINDER: current Plasma regressions

Please find below a list of the current regressions reported for Plasma. This is a weekly reminder. This search was scheduled by myr...@kde.org. Plasma regressions -- Bug 202336: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202336 Priority: NOR Severity: normal Platform: Gentoo

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Thursday 10 January 2013 22:05:28 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > what, if anything, would you like to be done differently in 4.11? We should honestly ask ourself, if we still take user feedback seriously. If there is no maintainer for a particular piece of code, simply admitting it can cause less us

Re: Review Request: Show album art in krunner results.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108316/#review25270 --- Regarding the QPixmap thread warning, there is a auxiliary icon

Re: Review Request: various fix for battery plasmoid

> On Jan. 12, 2013, 12:18 a.m., Kai Uwe Broulik wrote: > > plasma/generic/applets/batterymonitor/contents/code/logic.js, line 97 > > > > > > But isn't it the dataengine that prematurely triggers a brightnes > > ch

Re: Review Request: various fix for battery plasmoid

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108355/#review25267 --- plasma/generic/applets/batterymonitor/contents/code/logic.js <

Re: reflecting on 4.10

In data venerdì 11 gennaio 2013 22:58:49, Martin Gräßlin ha scritto: > Granted, not everyone is using Kubuntu, but I do think that other distros > could do similar (not looking into a particular direction, but there's a > Geeko on my desk) OpenSUSE has KDE:Unstable:SC which is made up of (regular

Review Request: various fix for battery plasmoid

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108355/ --- Review request for Plasma, Aaron J. Seigo, Viranch Mehta, and Viranch Mehta.

Re: Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday 11 January 2013 15:20:42 Weng Xuetian wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013 17:26:39，Marco Martin : > > On Friday 11 January 2013, Marco Martin wrote: > > > On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > > hello. > > > > > > > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with thi

Re: Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday 11 January 2013 20:37:37 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 17:53:34 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I think it's needed and I think nobody in our inner development circle can > > be part of it. We are all blind :-) > > i've already said this in another email, but this is only

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday 11 January 2013 17:26:39，Marco Martin : > On Friday 11 January 2013, Marco Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > hello. > > > > > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle > > > very fresh in mind, it is a reasonble tim

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 22:11:49 Vishesh Handa wrote: >> I think this is too big for one person. > > certainly one person can not do it *all*. however, as i think 4.10 has shown > rather dramatically, unless there is at least one person

Re: Review Request: NepomukRunner: Redirect the 'nepomuk:/res/uuid' urls before opening them

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108305/#review25263 --- This review has been submitted with commit 7e0c1a487ad29e30c79

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday, January 11, 2013 22:11:49 Vishesh Handa wrote: > I think this is too big for one person. certainly one person can not do it *all*. however, as i think 4.10 has shown rather dramatically, unless there is at least one person who is specifically given this responsibility, nobody does any

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday, January 11, 2013 18:37:44 Alex Fiestas wrote: > If we want to discuss this, we should start another thread for not going off > topic. imho it's completely on topic. > In the workspace sprint we had some ideas about this. please share them :) -- Aaron J. Seigo signature.asc Descrip

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday, January 11, 2013 17:53:34 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I think it's needed and I think nobody in our inner development circle can > be part of it. We are all blind :-) i've already said this in another email, but this is only half true. we need people outside our inner circle looking at thi

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 02:04:13 Jekyll Wu wrote: > If there is such an (plasma) master available, I think he/she should > probably better spend time on development, instead of on "poking others". that's a lovely idea, but who knows who needs to be poked when but someone who knows the techn

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On 2013年01月12日 00:26, Marco Martin wrote: maybe what we actually need is someone with a wide enough knowledge of the codebase, that continuously uses master and tests, poking people when regressions happen? (especially in areas far from what one usually works in, since for own area "proximity bli

Re: Re: Re: reflecting on 4.10

If we want to discuss this, we should start another thread for not going off topic. In the workspace sprint we had some ideas about this. ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel

Re: Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday 11 January 2013 17:26:39 Marco Martin wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013, Marco Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > hello. > > > > > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle > > > very fresh in mind, it is a reasonb

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Marco Martin wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013, Marco Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > hello. > > > > > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development > cycle > > > very fresh in mind, it is a reason

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Friday 11 January 2013, Marco Martin wrote: > On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > hello. > > > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle > > very fresh in mind, it is a reasonble time to reflect on how it went. > > this thread can be a place f

Re: krunner qml

On Friday, January 11, 2013 13:16:03 Aleix Pol wrote: > Why do we need a place to put it? because people were generally unaware the System Activity window even existed because there was no visible ui to show it. this was one of the findings of usability work done during the 3.x times, so we'r

Re: reflecting on 4.10

2013/1/10 Aaron J. Seigo : > hello. Hi > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle very > fresh in mind, it is a reasonble time to reflect on how it went. this thread > can be a place for us to do so, if we so wish. and i hope we do so that we can > improve our proce

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Thursday 10 January 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > hello. > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle > very fresh in mind, it is a reasonble time to reflect on how it went. this > thread can be a place for us to do so, if we so wish. and i hope we do so > that w

Re: reflecting on 4.10

Hi! > so how do you think 4.10 went? I was not involved deeply in this release and did not contribute anything besides some hopefully insightful bug reports. > what do you feel are the "defining" accomplishments for the desktop > workspace in 4.10? (e.g. the positive things people will talk a

Re: krunner qml

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 04:22:03 Aleix Pol wrote: > > Yes, the screen locker is a good place for it. In Android they did it > this > > way [1] and it works really well. > > yep; something Active will need to do eventually as well. > >

Re: reflecting on 4.10

On Thursday 10 January 2013 22:05:28 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > hello. > > we're nearly at the point of releasing 4.10. with this development cycle > very fresh in mind, it is a reasonble time to reflect on how it went. this > thread can be a place for us to do so, if we so wish. and i hope we do so

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:01:58 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:57:30PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > reverting is not going to happen at this point. > > Fair point, as it now seems to both have maintainers aware of its bugzilla > component and is getting its bugs fixe

Re: Review Request: Show album art in krunner results.

> On Jan. 10, 2013, 10:12 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote: > > runners/audioplayercontrol/audioplayercontrolrunner.cpp, line 510 > > > > > > How about using 'toUrl().toLocalFile()' instead? That will remove the > > fil

Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:50:53AM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > "an animated screen saver" is not the only answer. "blank the screen" works > just as well, probably even better from a power consumption point of view. > blanking the screen is still supported :) Some people care more about aeste

Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did you > last have a screen which needs to be saved? For background reading I > re

Re: New lockscreen

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:57:30PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > reverting is not going to happen at this point. Fair point, as it now seems to both have maintainers aware of its bugzilla component and is getting its bugs fixed. I really like the new screenlocker, both the architecture (one less

Re: New lockscreen

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:46:11PM +0100, Marco Martin wrote: > 311571 and 312427 should be fixed now Thanks! > some bugs seems easy, some i can'r reproduce them at all. Which ones can't you reproduce? I can look at them this evening. > however not all of those are valid i think (the concept

Re: Review Request: Show album art in krunner results.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108316/ --- (Updated Jan. 11, 2013, 7:01 a.m.) Review request for Plasma. Changes --

Re: Review Request: Show album art in krunner results.

> On Jan. 10, 2013, 10:09 p.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > very nice idea. > > > > as for the QPixmap error, one option is to do all the pixmap handling in > > the GUI thread by creating an object in the GUI thread and communicating > > with it via slots. the Places runner > > (kde-workspace/p

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:28:22 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove > > > the > > > feature. The use

Re: krunner qml

On Friday, January 11, 2013 04:22:03 Aleix Pol wrote: > Yes, the screen locker is a good place for it. In Android they did it this > way [1] and it works really well. yep; something Active will need to do eventually as well. > For example, I never understood why the system activity is there, GUI-

Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove > > the > > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did > > you last

Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 09:28:19 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > Well, the old one managed to be both, so IMHO if we remove features it is a > regression (though which ones are you talking about?). no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the feature. The use case for sc