> On Sept. 19, 2012, 5:11 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > every single change of this patch is a regression > > David Faure wrote: > Very encouraging, as always. Care to give us more details? > > Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > the reasons for kprocess' existence didn't go away, so every change away > from it is by definition a regression, either in functionality or > maintainablity. and the consistent replacement of setOutputChannelMode() with > setReadChannel() is so bizarre that one has to wonder what i wrote the apidoc > for in the first place. > > in case somebody is interested, i still have the (rather unfinished) > qprocess patches i wrote five years ago to address (some of) the issues > upstream. it would be qt 5.1 material, obviously. > > David Faure wrote: > That reasoning assumes that we need the additional-features-in-KProcess > everywhere KProcess is used, which is just not the case. > > See commits ed71a84ca2178865d947169a8f35a025c708a2ef and > 66fda6d3faafeadac82eae6b8308787b3fe96911 which already ported some KProcess > to QProcess, and which did not introduce regressions (most are in unittests, > which still pass). > > You're right about setOutputChannelMode, though -- apparently the proper > replacement is QProcess::setProcessChannelMode. > > Still I don't see why we can't use QProcess in its current form... like > everything it could be improved, but surely all other Qt apps manage just > fine?
ed71a84ca2178 is arguably broken. yes. a rather suboptimal replacement. before you ask, search the core-devel archive shortly before the time the new kprocess was added. other apps managed with motif just fine, too. doesn't mean the users liked the outcome. - Oswald ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/#review19174 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 18, 2012, 11:12 p.m., Kevin Funk wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 18, 2012, 11:12 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Description > ------- > > Port some uses of KProcess to QProcess > > > Diffs > ----- > > kdeui/dialogs/kedittoolbar.cpp 0582934b0bf8cb7160cb48b4c8151c81b35277f0 > kinit/klauncher.cpp 855e56041be5a5b76b9a7e9d0597ac7ad485682e > kio/kfile/kfilemetadatareader.cpp 88cadaa2edf1b1de24c0e91576cca368db41f470 > kio/kio/krun.h 7bfe66b59f1deffc37d3ceae999fb929e453fd31 > kio/kio/krun.cpp 031dbc1dfef685729038b4a59cbeacd34d448ed2 > kio/kio/krun_p.h 0ad15c8434599ccabcd649f251aa622d4fb0b0f7 > staging/kwidgets/autotests/kglobalsettingstest.cpp > 4426fee08427499c777cc7fc94e4b1345c790ac2 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Kevin Funk > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
