> On May 14, 2011, 4:01 a.m., Shaun Reich wrote:
> > Are you sure the behaviour for the Qt method 100% equivalent to the
> > current? I ask this because now that the deprecated method forwards to it,
> > naturally it's quite important to make sure nothing gets fscked up.
>
> Nicolas Alvarez wr
> On May 14, 2011, 4:01 a.m., Shaun Reich wrote:
> > Are you sure the behaviour for the Qt method 100% equivalent to the
> > current? I ask this because now that the deprecated method forwards to it,
> > naturally it's quite important to make sure nothing gets fscked up.
>
> Nicolas Alvarez wr
> On May 14, 2011, 4:01 a.m., Shaun Reich wrote:
> > Are you sure the behaviour for the Qt method 100% equivalent to the
> > current? I ask this because now that the deprecated method forwards to it,
> > naturally it's quite important to make sure nothing gets fscked up.
>
> Nicolas Alvarez wr
> On May 14, 2011, 4:01 a.m., Shaun Reich wrote:
> > Are you sure the behaviour for the Qt method 100% equivalent to the
> > current? I ask this because now that the deprecated method forwards to it,
> > naturally it's quite important to make sure nothing gets fscked up.
Someone in #kde-devel
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101360/#review3308
---
Are you sure the behaviour for the Qt method 100% equivalent to
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101360/
---
Review request for kdelibs and Plasma.
Summary
---
Since Qt 4.7 QLine
