Il giorno Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:18:24 +0100 Antonio Rojas <aro...@archlinux.org> ha scritto:
> I had to backport 4bf1d0e8 too for it to apply on top of 5.56. Would > be good if some kirigami dev could confirm whether it's OK to > backport just those 2 commits I talked this over with notmart on IRC: [11:32] <notmart> hmm, not much understanding why 4bf1d0e8 is needed [11:32] <einar77_work> notmart: backporting one introduces conflicts [11:32] <notmart> i tought the fix for the kcm freeze was done before tagging, meh [11:32] <notmart> right [11:33] <notmart> so yeah, the other one is mostly harmless [11:33] <notmart> i guess is better to backport those two instead of making another one ad hoc? [11:33] <einar77_work> I would say so tl;dr: It should be harmless. Can we get a kirigami 5.56.1 with those two commits in? While we're here we might want a plasma-framework 5.56.1 with ebae2d63033647950cf0f9d97410723a8c7db1f3 applied (which fixes a crash).
pgpPIjl_2pXlo.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP
