On 08.01.2011, at 19:25, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
>> On 07.01.2011, at 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2011
On Saturday, January 8, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> On 07.01.2011, at 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> >> On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> >> Introducing custom p
On 07.01.2011, at 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
>> On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
>
>> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this means
>> that
On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> I´m also not sure why the current update system using the version field is
> not usable.
consider 5 addons are installed. with a version check that means:
* sending across a request for each of those 5 items
* on the server, looking up 5 diff
On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this means
> that not all clients can talk to all servers.
which actually
On 07.01.2011, at 12:59, Artur de Souza wrote:
> Hey Frank!
>
> Quoting Frank Karlitschek :
>> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this means that
>> not all clients can talk to all servers.
>> This might not be a problem if some is using only plasma and your server but
Hey Frank!
Quoting Frank Karlitschek :
> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this
> means that not all clients can talk to all servers.
> This might not be a problem if some is using only plasma and your
> server but it breaks the idea of OCS.
Even if it's an optional
On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
>> Hmm. This parameter is not in the current spec and is not in attica or GHNS
>> supported at the moment and makes it incompatible with clients like the
>> MeeGo Installer an other servers lik
On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> Hmm. This parameter is not in the current spec and is not in attica or GHNS
> supported at the moment and makes it incompatible with clients like the
> MeeGo Installer an other servers like Maemo garage or others. It also
it doesn't make it
On 06.01.2011, at 23:57, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
>>> I´m not sure a batch update call is really needed because this call would
>>> have a very low cache hit rate on the server compared wi
On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> > I´m not sure a batch update call is really needed because this call would
> > have a very low cache hit rate on the server compared with atomic checks
> > for single plasmoids.
> >
> >
On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > hi..
> >
> > the subject line of this email should be sung to the tune of your
> > favourite superhero t.v. show, such as Italian Spiderman.
> >
> > on boxing day (which is what the Brits a
On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> I´m not sure a batch update call is really needed because this call would
> have a very low cache hit rate on the server compared with atomic checks
> for single plasmoids.
>
> But a batch check call could be added to the next version of the
On 05.01.2011, at 23:33, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Marco Martin wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>
>> if it ends up to be pulled from all KDE users, couldn't it become a bit of
>> a burden for KDE servers?
>
> yes. on the other hand serv
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 02:23, LucaTringali wrote:
>>the subject line of this email should be sung to the tune of your favourite
>>superhero t.v. show, such as Italian Spiderman.
>
> love it!
>
>>* how to automatically check for addons from synchrotron on first-run
>>* how to check for updates so w
On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> if it ends up to be pulled from all KDE users, couldn't it become a bit of
> a burden for KDE servers?
yes. on the other hand servers are pretty powerful these days and this service
is redi
16 matches
Mail list logo
