Re: Login for bug reporting
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:20:07PM +0100, Frank Reininghaus wrote: > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time marking > reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs for KDE > 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not make it > worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. Wouldn't this be solved if backtraces weren't entered as bugs, but into a separate system as Nicolás talks about? That system would hopefully also be able to group together backtraces for the same crashes, and thereby also automatically discarding backtraces marked as "fixed" (especially if we get version information together with the backtrace). -- Martin Sandsmark
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Wednesday, 2013-02-06, Anders Lund wrote: > Onsdag den 6. februar 2013 21:52:53 skrev Alex Fiestas: > > On Wednesday 06 February 2013 20:36:33 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > actually, if he has taken the obstacles of installing tens of megabytes > > > of stuff, what was the problem with creating an account? > > > > Haven't it ever happened to you that you are buying something on the > > interwebs or checking some stuff and when you are asked to login/register > > you stop? > > > > It has happened to me hundreds of times, maybe because I'm lazy. > > > > I sympathize with this user. > > So do I. > > Wouldn't it be possible to send a confirmation link for a bug reported by > someone not logged in? It was definitely the process of creating an account, the developer was explicitly stating that providing an email address isn't the problem. Does the crash report dialog offer the option of creating an account? Does it store the password so that it can be automatically retrieved for further reports or when interacting with the web interface in a browser? My understanding of how bugzilla works is that it sends emails to people registered for a certain bug, so an email address would be sufficient, no? Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Wednesday, 2013-02-06, Frank Reininghaus wrote: > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > channel will only make it worse. This wouldn't be another channel of communication, just a different way to provide the bug tracker with the usual contact information. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
Onsdag den 6. februar 2013 22:20:07 skrev Frank Reininghaus: considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not make it worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. Anders
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Wednesday, 2013-02-06, Myriam Schweingruber wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Frank Reininghaus > > wrote: > > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time > > marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting > > bugs for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please > > do not make it worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. > > I fully agree with Frank here, we already get way enough useless > reports, please don't lower the barrier even more. IMHO it is already > very easy to report a bug in BKO, much easier actually than in other > bug trackers out there, and, unless you find a miracle solution to > increase the number of triagers at least 10x the current number, > lowering the barrier would also mean more bogus and spam. Please don't > make our work harder than it already is. This isn't a way of lowering the barrier of reporting, it is about allowing different means of providing the necessary personal information of the bug reporter. In any case, the main issue of the person was to encounter the account requirment after having gone through the process of making the crash report useful. If we don't want any further bug reports from non-account holders, we can alternatively change the order of things, e.g. check for account credentials before checking for debug symbols. I do wonder though why our wikis allow different ways of login if we seem think that only input from people with accounts on KDE infrastructure provide valueable content. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Anders Lund wrote: > Onsdag den 6. februar 2013 22:20:07 skrev Frank Reininghaus: > > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time marking > reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs for KDE > 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not make it > worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. > > > > How would the demand for having an account lower the amount of duplicates? The other way round: we already have a lot of duplicates with the current system, if the reports don't have to make an account anymore we would get even more useless reports. Regards, Myriam -- Proud member of the Amarok and KDE Community Protect your freedom and join the Fellowship of FSFE: http://www.fsfe.org Please don't send me proprietary file formats, use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300)
Re: Login for bug reporting
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Anders Lund wrote: > > Onsdag den 6. februar 2013 22:20:07 skrev Frank Reininghaus: > > > > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible > > bug, my > > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the > > bug > > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via > > email/Facebook" > > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time > > marking > > reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs > > for KDE > > 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not > > make it > > worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. > > > > > > > > How would the demand for having an account lower the amount of > > duplicates? > > The other way round: we already have a lot of duplicates with the > current system, if the reports don't have to make an account anymore > we would get even more useless reports. Beside, does the account generation not at least validate the E-Mail address, or? I mean, I have nothing against allowing people to login with their Google account or whatever if that is possible, but I would not like to see bug reports by . Greetings Christoph -- -- Christoph Cullmann - AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH Email: cullm...@absint.com Science Park 1 Tel: +49-681-38360-22 66123 Saarbrücken Fax: +49-681-38360-20 GERMANYWWW: http://www.AbsInt.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Christian Ferdinand Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Saarbrücken, HRB 11234
Re: Login for bug reporting
Torsdag den 7. februar 2013 10:29:53 skrev Myriam Schweingruber: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Anders Lund wrote: > > Onsdag den 6. februar 2013 22:20:07 skrev Frank Reininghaus: > > > > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time > > marking > > reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs for KDE > > 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not make it > > worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. > > > > > > > > How would the demand for having an account lower the amount of duplicates? > > The other way round: we already have a lot of duplicates with the > current system, if the reports don't have to make an account anymore > we would get even more useless reports. Noone /wants/ to create duplicates. Preventing bug reports not only prevents duplicates, it also prevents usable reports. If we want fewer duplicates, making it more likely that they are caught before reported is a better idea. Make the duplicate search step more efficient, for example by having it on a page of its own, so it can't be scrolled past as easily, and provide better information about using it. And what others can come up with... Anders
Re: Login for bug reporting
Torsdag den 7. februar 2013 10:37:38 skrev Christoph Cullmann: > Beside, > > does the account generation not at least validate the E-Mail address, or? > > I mean, I have nothing against allowing people to login with their Google > account or whatever if that is possible, but I would not like to see bug > reports by . Thus the idea of using a confirmation link. Anders
Re: Login for bug reporting
Hi everyone, Frank Reininghaus wrote: > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time > marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs > for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not > make it worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. The duplicate problem is really an issue I'm sure, but the partial solution might be to use a separate crash-tracker like Nicolás mentioned. Basically the crash-tracker would collect the crash information, from which the bug reports can be made if/when needed. Actually this might even make the situation better for the triaging (aggregation, dupfinding, keeping b.k.o clean..), but can't say for sure of course. I'm not (yet) sure how the process works for Mozilla folks, but all the crashes are reported to a centralized place and aggregated afaik, all done without logging. The bug entries in their Bugzilla are then linked (and vice-versa?) to the crash reports, see https://crash- stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox . Btw, what kind of reports are they mostly you're marking as dupes/invalids? Not crashes I assume, as DrKonqi should do dupe-checking before letting one to submit reports.. -- Best Regards, Teemu Rytilahti
Re: Login for bug reporting
Hi, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > I want to hijack this thread, as it is similar to what I find annoying > (but for a totally different reason). I have an account, but sometimes I > hack around at other peoples machines. I usually don't have my credential > there and I don't even want to put them on this machines. But when I see a > crash I would like to have Dr. Konqi to be able to tell me if this is a > dupe or not. If it is I could just dump the trace and go on, if it is not > I could still save it and report it back at home. Currently I need to log > in before it is able to find dupes, which is IMHO not necessary as the > information in public. Agreed. And in the same breath it would be nice to relay information about already fixed bugs ala "This bug has been fixed in version x" or "You can use this thing as a workaround". I'm sure there are plenty of cases where a "work- around" information would be really useful also in cases when the bug is not easily fixable (see Akregator&Metakit crashes, some KWin crashes probably too?). -- Best Regards, Teemu Rytilahti
Re: Login for bug reporting
Hello, Myriam Schweingruber wrote: > I fully agree with Frank here, we already get way enough useless > reports, please don't lower the barrier even more. IMHO it is already > very easy to report a bug in BKO, much easier actually than in other > bug trackers out there, and, unless you find a miracle solution to > increase the number of triagers at least 10x the current number, > lowering the barrier would also mean more bogus and spam. Please don't > make our work harder than it already is. What kind of reports are those useless ones? Dupes? Downstream bugs? Missing information? In my opinion reporting bugs to b.k.o is not that easy (or I've become lazy) as it should be and that's why I'm wondering.. Bogus & spam can probably be handled more or less automatically, when we know what we want and what's are the problems currently. -- Best Regards, Teemu Rytilahti
Re: Login for bug reporting
Hi, Martin Graesslin wrote: > +1 from me. I don't want reports from users not willing to create an > account So easier account creation is also a big no-no? For crashes or for all bugs? Mozilla allows one to supply an e-mail address if the user is willing for that, but still allows sending the traces for aggregation. That doesn't apply for regular bugs though... -- Best Regards, Teemu Rytilahti
Re: Login for bug reporting
Hi again, Frank Reininghaus wrote: > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time > marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs > for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please do not > make it worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. Just wanted to add also, that in case the version stuff is a problem, entering the bugs can be limited of course. I think the big thing with 4.8 crashes might be that they're already fixed and there's a solution available (upgrade), in which case that information could be delivered directly to the user (though when collecting all the crashes to a separate crash reporting system, it'll give nice stats how common the crash is) without even adding that information to the bug-tracker. -- Best Regards, Teemu Rytilahti
Re: Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thursday 07 February 2013 02:00:19 Teemu Rytilahti wrote: > Hi, > > Martin Graesslin wrote: > > +1 from me. I don't want reports from users not willing to create an > > account > > So easier account creation is also a big no-no? For crashes or for all bugs? That depends on how the "easier" works. Email address only is for me a big no- no as it means that the user cannot add attachments, which is quite important in the case of a crash trace. Also it *must* be clear to the user that they are interacting with a web software and not sending an email to a person. This is something I see again and again, that users are not aware of that. > Mozilla allows one to supply an e-mail address if the user is willing for > that, but still allows sending the traces for aggregation. That doesn't > apply for regular bugs though... if the backtraces go to a special system where I don't see the dups, I'm all fine. If they go to bugzilla I want less and I mean it. The number of duplicates is a real problem and costs us lot's of time and work. I don't want to see anything done to make it easier. And no, we cannot expect users to recognize a duplicate crash, That's too difficult, we can also not expect users from recognizing whether a backtrace is useful. -- Martin Gräßlin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thursday, 2013-02-07, Teemu Rytilahti wrote: > I'm not (yet) sure how the process works for Mozilla folks, but all the > crashes are reported to a centralized place and aggregated afaik, all done > without logging. The bug entries in their Bugzilla are then linked (and > vice-versa?) to the crash reports, see https://crash- > stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox . I met a guy from Mozilla on my flight back home from FOSDEM and his job is doing statistic analysis on their crash reports to find those that happen most often and then enter those as issues for the developers to look at. So they definitely don't add all crash reports to their bug tracker. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:58:14AM +0100, Teemu Rytilahti wrote: > What kind of reports are those useless ones? Dupes? Downstream bugs? Missing > information? In my opinion reporting bugs to b.k.o is not that easy (or I've > become lazy) as it should be and that's why I'm wondering.. All of the above, as well as obvious PEBKACs and support requests. -- Martin Sandsmark
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:10:35AM +0100, Kevin Krammer wrote: > I met a guy from Mozilla on my flight back home from FOSDEM and his job is > doing statistic analysis on their crash reports to find those that happen > most > often and then enter those as issues for the developers to look at. > So they definitely don't add all crash reports to their bug tracker. But do they accept crashes which are not from their own builds? -- Martin Sandsmark
Re: Login for bug reporting
2013/2/7 Kevin Krammer: > On Wednesday, 2013-02-06, Myriam Schweingruber wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Frank Reininghaus >> >> wrote: > >> > considering that we get lots of duplicates for any reproducible bug, my >> > impression is actually not that there are to many obstacles in the bug >> > reporting process. Providing any kind of "contact me via email/Facebook" >> > channel will only make it worse. I'm already spending a lot of time >> > marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting >> > bugs for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Please >> > do not make it worse by lowering the bug reporting barriers. >> >> I fully agree with Frank here, we already get way enough useless >> reports, please don't lower the barrier even more. IMHO it is already >> very easy to report a bug in BKO, much easier actually than in other >> bug trackers out there, and, unless you find a miracle solution to >> increase the number of triagers at least 10x the current number, >> lowering the barrier would also mean more bogus and spam. Please don't >> make our work harder than it already is. > > This isn't a way of lowering the barrier of reporting, it is about allowing > different means of providing the necessary personal information of the bug > reporter. > > In any case, the main issue of the person was to encounter the account > requirment after having gone through the process of making the crash report > useful. If we don't want any further bug reports from non-account holders, we > can alternatively change the order of things, e.g. check for account > credentials before checking for debug symbols. Fair enough, telling people in advance that they will need an account in order to proceed certainly makes sense. > I do wonder though why our wikis allow different ways of login if we seem > think that only input from people with accounts on KDE infrastructure provide > valueable content. I must say that comments like this make me a bit angry. I do wonder why people who apparently never did any serious bug triaging work refuse to listen to people who do it every single day [1]. Again: most bug reports are not useful, but every incoming bug report requires a few minutes of bug triager/developer time, which is a scarce resource. If you don't believe me, look at the crashes reported in January [2]. All those which have DUPL, INVA, WAIT, DOWN, UNMA, DOWN, UPST, WORK, BACK in the 'Resolution' column were not useful, but still required at the very, very least a minute or two each to handle them. Many of those which are still 'UNCO' are probably not useful either. I think that the awesome users who take great efforts to write good reports and find ways to reproduce bugs reliably don't mind the 1 minute registration process. OTOH, people who do think that this registration is too much to ask for are probably not the ones who will invest even more time to provide feedback and make their report useful. I think that a person who is not willing to spend 1 minute creating an account should not have the right to make me spend one or more minutes handling her/his bug report. Cheers, Frank [1] Number of bugs that a person commented on according to the bugs.kde.org search: Myriam: > 1 Martin: 3638 Frank: 3104 Kevin: 141 [2] https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=crash&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=NEEDSINFO&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&chfield=[Bug%20creation]&chfieldfrom=2013-01-01&chfieldto=2013-01-31&list_id=479548&query_format=advanced&order=bug_id&limit=0
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thursday, 2013-02-07, Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:10:35AM +0100, Kevin Krammer wrote: > > I met a guy from Mozilla on my flight back home from FOSDEM and his job > > is doing statistic analysis on their crash reports to find those that > > happen most often and then enter those as issues for the developers to > > look at. So they definitely don't add all crash reports to their bug > > tracker. > > But do they accept crashes which are not from their own builds? No idea, I was more interested in having him talk about FirefoxOS :) The only thing I remember from the initial introduction was that they get so many crash reports that they can't look at them individually but need to perform statistical analysis first. Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thursday 07 February 2013 11:14:01 Frank Reininghaus wrote: > If you don't believe me, look at the crashes reported in January [2]. > All those which have DUPL, INVA, WAIT, DOWN, UNMA, DOWN, UPST, WORK, > BACK in the 'Resolution' column were not useful, but still required at > the very, very least a minute or two each to handle them. I once calculated it for our most often reported bug. It's a driver crash, nothing we could do about it. It has 133 duplicates. Workflow: * incoming mail in bugs mail folder * read backtrace * click the link * switch to browser * scroll down to duplicate field * enter kwin-intel * click submit (* curse because Thomas was faster) With the "it interrupted the work" it takes about 1 to 2 minutes. That's an easy one as we don't have to look for the duplicate. So it's 266 minutes just for this one bug which is half a person day of work. Also spend a moment and look at the report. There is multiple times written that we don't want any further comments on the bug and that doesn't help anything. Still attachements, still duplicates. -- Martin Gräßlin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:15:48AM +0100, Kevin Krammer wrote: > The only thing I remember from the initial introduction was that they get so > many crash reports that they can't look at them individually but need to > perform statistical analysis first. Well, AFAIK they use breakpad, which means they need to store the debug symbols on their server, and people only upload the minimal stack traces with addresses. This makes it much easier to analyze (statistically and otherwise) and find duplicates, but it's not something we can do. If anything, it would have to be done at a distro level. -- Martin Sandsmark
Re: Login for bug reporting
On Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:26:52 CEST, Anders Lund wrote: I'm already spending a lot of time marking reports as duplicate/invalid or telling people that reporting bugs for KDE 4.8 or earlier is not quite as useful as they think. Are most of these reports coming from DrKonqi? If so, have it fetch the list of "supported versions" from somewhere and tell the user to upgrade when their version is too old, then. (And don't accidentally prevent the automated reporting when the version is actually an output from `git describe` etc). Cheers, Jan -- Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > The initial draft of the SVN shutdown plan is available on the community > wiki: http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/SVNInfrastructureShutdown > > As you can see this is a long-term plan. None of this is written in > stone; any feedback is welcome! Is this still the active plan? in plasma we have some stuff into svn, kept here because git doesn't work that well, basically artwork: kde-artwork kde-wallpapers kde-artwork-active all of that can be moved, but will probably be among most problematic repositories that still have to be migrated.. suggestions for those? Cheers, Marco Martin
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
Hi all, What's about user home dir hosted in SVN repository which must be moved somewhere is GIT. Typically, mine is here : http://websvn.kde.org/branches/work/~cgilles/ Best Gilles Caulier 2013/2/7 Marco Martin > On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > > The initial draft of the SVN shutdown plan is available on the community > > wiki: http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/SVNInfrastructureShutdown > > > > As you can see this is a long-term plan. None of this is written in > > stone; any feedback is welcome! > > Is this still the active plan? > in plasma we have some stuff into svn, kept here because git doesn't work > that > well, basically artwork: > kde-artwork > kde-wallpapers > kde-artwork-active > > all of that can be moved, but will probably be among most problematic > repositories that still have to be migrated.. suggestions for those? > > Cheers, > Marco Martin >
Re: Review Request 105304: Allow usage of detailedsorry and detailederror in kdialog
> On July 12, 2012, 4:17 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > Looks good. For master only, though, given feature+message freeze in 4.9. > > Kai Uwe Broulik wrote: > Totally forgot to commit this :( Will do for master (4.10) once my ssh > key for my new notebook got imported. I see this has a ship it but marked as uncommited. Was it commited and you forgot to close the request or is still uncommited? - Albert --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105304/#review15735 --- On June 20, 2012, 12:06 a.m., Kai Uwe Broulik wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105304/ > --- > > (Updated June 20, 2012, 12:06 a.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Base Apps. > > > Description > --- > > As somebody who loves bash scripting but also wants to have a nice > userfriendly graphical "interface" for those scripts, I excessively use > kdialog. > In a new project I am working on, I need the detailedsorry thing in > KMessageBox, so I can provide a simple error message "could not launch xyz" > while allowing detailed error information such as "directory xyz does not > exist" in an expandable Details box. > This patch adds this functionality to kdialog. > Usage: > kdialog --detailedsorry "error message" "what should be in the details > section" > also works with detailederror > > [I am volunteering for an update of the respective Wiki page on techbase > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Development/Tutorials/Shell_Scripting_with_KDE_Dialogs_%28de%29 > as well. Those screenshots date back to KDE 3 and early KDE 4 times ;) ] > > > Diffs > - > > kdialog/kdialog.cpp ca2df2f > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105304/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > Tested and works. Works with linebreaks and other parameters as well. > > > Screenshots > --- > > a sample message > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105304/s/606/ > > > Thanks, > > Kai Uwe Broulik > >
Re: Review Request 107356: Fix in documentation (comment in header): QPrinter::PaperSize instead of QPrinter::PageSize
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107356/#review26883 --- I see this has a ship it but marked as uncommited. Was it commited and you forgot to close the request or is still uncommited? - Albert Astals Cid On Nov. 17, 2012, 10:31 a.m., Thomas Fischer wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107356/ > --- > > (Updated Nov. 17, 2012, 10:31 a.m.) > > > Review request for kdelibs. > > > Description > --- > > According to the latest Qt documentation, there is no PageSize enum in > QPrinter, only a PaperSize enum. > > BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea for KDE5 (not to break anything now, but add > a "//KDE5" comment) to use QPrinter's enum directly instead of an int and to > rename the functions to paperSize() and setPaperSize(..), respectively? > > > Diffs > - > > kdecore/localization/klocale.h cdbc3d3 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107356/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > > Thanks, > > Thomas Fischer > >
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Marco Martin wrote: > On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> The initial draft of the SVN shutdown plan is available on the community >> wiki: http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/SVNInfrastructureShutdown >> >> As you can see this is a long-term plan. None of this is written in >> stone; any feedback is welcome! > > Is this still the active plan? > in plasma we have some stuff into svn, kept here because git doesn't work that > well, basically artwork: > kde-artwork > kde-wallpapers > kde-artwork-active > > all of that can be moved, but will probably be among most problematic > repositories that still have to be migrated.. suggestions for those? At this time this is the current plan. With regards to any and all binary data: watch this space. At this time it is known that Git support for binary data is quite poor, however any final decisions in regard to their future have not yet been made (as support in Git could potentially improve..) > > Cheers, > Marco Martin Regards, Ben Cooksley KDE Sysadmin > ___ > Plasma-devel mailing list > plasma-de...@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Gilles Caulier wrote: > Hi all, Hi Gilles, > > What's about user home dir hosted in SVN repository which must be moved > somewhere is GIT. > > Typically, mine is here : > > http://websvn.kde.org/branches/work/~cgilles/ You should migrate those to repositories under your scratch namespace on git.kde.org. > > Best > > Gilles Caulier Regards, Ben Cooksley KDE Sysadmin > > > > 2013/2/7 Marco Martin >> >> On Wednesday 02 January 2013, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> > The initial draft of the SVN shutdown plan is available on the community >> > wiki: http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/SVNInfrastructureShutdown >> > >> > As you can see this is a long-term plan. None of this is written in >> > stone; any feedback is welcome! >> >> Is this still the active plan? >> in plasma we have some stuff into svn, kept here because git doesn't work >> that >> well, basically artwork: >> kde-artwork >> kde-wallpapers >> kde-artwork-active >> >> all of that can be moved, but will probably be among most problematic >> repositories that still have to be migrated.. suggestions for those? >> >> Cheers, >> Marco Martin > >
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
2013/2/7 Ben Cooksley > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Gilles Caulier > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Hi Gilles, > > > > > What's about user home dir hosted in SVN repository which must be moved > > somewhere is GIT. > > > > Typically, mine is here : > > > > http://websvn.kde.org/branches/work/~cgilles/ > > You should migrate those to repositories under your scratch namespace > on git.kde.org. > Hi Ben, My scratch namespace ? I'm not sure to understand... Gilles
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
> > You should migrate those to repositories under your scratch namespace > > on git.kde.org. > > Hi Ben, > > My scratch namespace ? I'm not sure to understand... http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/GitKdeOrgManual#Personal_scratch_repositories Cheerio, Ivan
Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown
Thanks Gilles 2013/2/7 Ivan Čukić > > > > You should migrate those to repositories under your scratch namespace > > > on git.kde.org. > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > My scratch namespace ? I'm not sure to understand... > > > http://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/GitKdeOrgManual#Personal_scratch_repositories > > Cheerio, > Ivan > > >
Review Request 108845: add support for SSSE3 and SSE4.2 in cpufeatures and for msvc
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/ --- Review request for kdelibs and Patrick von Reth. Description --- This change implements cpu feature checks for MSVC. While at it, I added support SSSE3 and SSE4.2 to the InstructionSets. I took the new values from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID#EAX.3D1:_Processor_Info_and_Feature_Bits . Diffs - tier1/solid/src/solid/backends/shared/cpufeatures.cpp baa1af2 tier1/solid/src/solid/processor.h ce4f0e1 Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/diff/ Testing --- Windows Thanks, Patrick Spendrin
Re: Review Request 108845: add support for SSSE3 and SSE4.2 in cpufeatures and for msvc
Suggestion: just make the Qt API public. On sexta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2013 00.37.55, Patrick Spendrin wrote: > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/ > --- > > Review request for kdelibs and Patrick von Reth. > > > Description > --- > > This change implements cpu feature checks for MSVC. While at it, I added > support SSSE3 and SSE4.2 to the InstructionSets. I took the new values from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID#EAX.3D1:_Processor_Info_and_Feature_Bits > . > > > Diffs > - > > tier1/solid/src/solid/backends/shared/cpufeatures.cpp baa1af2 > tier1/solid/src/solid/processor.h ce4f0e1 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > Windows > > > Thanks, > > Patrick Spendrin -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Review Request 108845: add support for SSSE3 and SSE4.2 in cpufeatures and for msvc
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/ --- (Updated Feb. 8, 2013, 1:09 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks, kdelibs and Patrick von Reth. Description --- This change implements cpu feature checks for MSVC. While at it, I added support SSSE3 and SSE4.2 to the InstructionSets. I took the new values from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID#EAX.3D1:_Processor_Info_and_Feature_Bits . Diffs - tier1/solid/src/solid/backends/shared/cpufeatures.cpp baa1af2 tier1/solid/src/solid/processor.h ce4f0e1 Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108845/diff/ Testing --- Windows Thanks, Patrick Spendrin
