ndavis added a comment.
In D25543#568159 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D25543#568159>, @hpereiradacosta wrote: > You are missing copyright information and license in all the newly created files. Thanks, should I just copy/paste the info from breezestyle.cpp? > On the review side: it is impossible to actually review, right ? I was kind of worried that might be the case. > As for the conceptual side: I fear this is addressing a non existing issue, and giving a wrong impression about how one should hack on a widget style. It is wrong to think that you can hack on a widget style widget by widget without consideration about how they should appear one with respect to the others, how they should align one with respect to the other, and how the other widgets are implemented. You do need to know the whole code and interplay before starting to hack anyway. The splitting does not change this. In the end it might just result in a lot of duplicated code. I have seen others in the VDG chat room say that the massive length of breezestyle.cpp made hacking on Breeze too intimidating. I understand your concern about giving the wrong impression though. I'm hoping to use these new files as a way of categorizing by visible widget types ("Where is the code for tabs? In tabbar.cpp", not exact Qt Widget classes. There's still nothing stopping others from reusing code from one widget category in another since all the functions are still defined in breezehelper.h and breezestyle.h. REPOSITORY R31 Breeze REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D25543 To: ndavis, #plasma, #breeze Cc: hpereiradacosta, ngraham, IlyaBizyaev, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, ZrenBot, alexeymin, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, ahiemstra, mart
