Hello, On Wednesday 05 November 2014 08:58:04 Martin Graesslin wrote: > So in stead of adding one exception after the other, just go the full way > and raise the requirement.
I'm rather against per framework exception too. That said, raising the requirement should be done responsibly regarding the goals of KDE Frameworks which are also diffusing it's use outside of our community in general, it's use outside our own workspace in particular. > The fact that we don't have a CI to test it just shows even more that we > need to raise the minimum requirement. That's a very wrong line of argument... It shows that we should have better platform coverage in our CI. We don't really have CI for Mac OS X either and we break path related stuff there from time to time. Shall we Mac OS X support then? Slippery slope... > Cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list > Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel