I think it's pretty good. You pointed out the reasons of your doings, which imo are really important. Last year, I wrote two use cases in my proposal, however I don't know if something like that really fits in yours.
cheers On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Viranch Mehta <viranch.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote: >> >> On Friday, March 11, 2011 19:28:13 todd rme wrote: >> > Might it be good to start with the ones that are already in-progress, >> > that way you can directly compare the the existing plasmoid code and >> > the QML code and thus, hopefully, get a feel for how to do the >> > porting? >> >> But the ones which are in progress are possibly the ones which get done, >> anyway. I don't think it's a good idea to put a GSoC student onto >> something >> people are already working on. > > I think I can look through some on-going work and possibly write some > patches for getting familiar. > Another question: All the QML plasmoids are currently in playground, right? > Viranch > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel > > _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel