> On Aug. 3, 2016, 3:32 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > I think that changing maintainership is fine, I'm not convinced that the > > work done so far is enough to consider it up to speed. > > David Faure wrote: > Can you give more details about what you see as missing before the > framework can be non-deprecated?
My fear is that it's a framework that requires a mainainer that is quite on top. Back in the days when Sebastian Sauer was active, small details had to be considered all over the place. I'm a bit afraid that we might need more than a "seems to work". That said, it's probably the same case for other frameworks already... - Aleix ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/#review98030 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 3, 2016, 1:55 a.m., Alexander Potashev wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 3, 2016, 1:55 a.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Repository: kross > > > Description > ------- > > Take over maintainership; remove framework deprecation flags > > > Diffs > ----- > > metainfo.yaml 28937c96ba71aecd81d3565d071fe6560ef2e68e > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Potashev > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel