Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-06-21 11:45 GMT+02:00 David Faure fa...@kde.org: On Thursday 19 June 2014 17:07:49 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: 2014-06-18 18:50 GMT+02:00 David Faure fa...@kde.org: On Wednesday 18 June 2014 16:27:43 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I don't mind either way, it makes very little difference in the end (sudo zypper install kronometer, done) In fact the real question is what do *you* want: do you want it released automatically as part of the KDE SC, or do you want to make your own releases (more work for you, but you control when it's released). Well, what I really care for is packaging and translations, the release schedule is secondary. It's not just about schedule, it's about who does the work. I'm not sure how exactly extragear works. Let's say I choose to move kronometer in extragear-utils: the many distros will automatically package it? Yes, that's not where the difference is. What about translations? No difference there either. So I think extragear is enough for my requirements. The difference is: will you take care of doing regular releases of the code (versionning, packaging, uploading, etc. etc.). Or would you rather that this happens automatically for you whenever a KDE SC release comes out. I think I am more familiar doing my own release schedule. Thank you for explaining! Thank you all for the comments during this review, it's been a pleasure. In the next couple of days I will submit a ticket to move kronometer to extragear-utils, unless there are further last minute comments. Regards, Elvis -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Thursday 19 June 2014 17:07:49 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: 2014-06-18 18:50 GMT+02:00 David Faure fa...@kde.org: On Wednesday 18 June 2014 16:27:43 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I don't mind either way, it makes very little difference in the end (sudo zypper install kronometer, done) In fact the real question is what do *you* want: do you want it released automatically as part of the KDE SC, or do you want to make your own releases (more work for you, but you control when it's released). Well, what I really care for is packaging and translations, the release schedule is secondary. It's not just about schedule, it's about who does the work. I'm not sure how exactly extragear works. Let's say I choose to move kronometer in extragear-utils: the many distros will automatically package it? Yes, that's not where the difference is. What about translations? No difference there either. The difference is: will you take care of doing regular releases of the code (versionning, packaging, uploading, etc. etc.). Or would you rather that this happens automatically for you whenever a KDE SC release comes out. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-06-18 18:50 GMT+02:00 David Faure fa...@kde.org: On Wednesday 18 June 2014 16:27:43 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I don't mind either way, it makes very little difference in the end (sudo zypper install kronometer, done) In fact the real question is what do *you* want: do you want it released automatically as part of the KDE SC, or do you want to make your own releases (more work for you, but you control when it's released). Well, what I really care for is packaging and translations, the release schedule is secondary. I'm not sure how exactly extragear works. Let's say I choose to move kronometer in extragear-utils: the many distros will automatically package it? Or this is the case only for the software within KDE SC? What about translations? Thank you, Elvis
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
El Dimecres, 18 de juny de 2014, a les 18:50:12, David Faure va escriure: On Wednesday 18 June 2014 16:27:43 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I don't mind either way, it makes very little difference in the end (sudo zypper install kronometer, done) In fact the real question is what do *you* want: No, that has never been the real question. It is a balance between what you want and what the community feels is relevant. We've rejected various projects in the main modules because we felt they were too use case specific. Cheers, Albert do you want it released automatically as part of the KDE SC, or do you want to make your own releases (more work for you, but you control when it's released).
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Wednesday 18 June 2014 16:27:43 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I don't mind either way, it makes very little difference in the end (sudo zypper install kronometer, done) In fact the real question is what do *you* want: do you want it released automatically as part of the KDE SC, or do you want to make your own releases (more work for you, but you control when it's released). -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
Hello, in the last two months this thread has not been updated, so I assume that the Kronometer UI is ok. What is still not clear is whether to move Kronometer in extragear-utils or kdeutils and until this decision is not reached I can't file a sysadmin request to exit from kdereview. At the moment, in this thread there is one vote for extragear-utils by Albert and one for kdeutils by David. There is another thread in kde-utils-devel list where there is another vote for extragear-utils: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-utils-devel/2014-April/001110.html I'll wait for the final decision. Best regards, Elvis 2014-05-09 10:37 GMT+02:00 David Faure fa...@kde.org: On Monday 14 April 2014 01:06:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Personally I don't see it being a broad enough use case to make sense to be in kdeutils. What do others think? I know that my wife was looking for such an application in KDE, to time meetings or phone calls, or as a bug reporter, to measure the time taken by a slow application to perform a given task. So this isn't just about sports (if one ignores the lap feature). - I think it belongs to KDE SC (kdeutils). -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Monday 14 April 2014 01:06:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Personally I don't see it being a broad enough use case to make sense to be in kdeutils. What do others think? I know that my wife was looking for such an application in KDE, to time meetings or phone calls, or as a bug reporter, to measure the time taken by a slow application to perform a given task. So this isn't just about sports (if one ignores the lap feature). - I think it belongs to KDE SC (kdeutils). -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
Hi all, 2014-04-23 17:19 GMT+02:00 Elvis Angelaccio elvis.angelac...@kdemail.net: 2014-04-23 14:28 GMT+02:00 Thomas Lübking thomas.luebk...@gmail.com: On Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 13:17:02 CEST, Elvis Angelaccio wrote: I don't understand. Since there are only numbers I think that your point is already accomplished. Nope. To get monospace glyphs for sure, you must select a monospace font - otherwise you're going by luck. At least on my system ;-) Have you found a particular font that doesn't look this way? Hundreds - it's pretty common and the more exotic the fonts get (script), the more obvious this becomes, but you may try Fontin [1], Bitstream Handel Gothic [2], Adobe Jenson or Linotype Frutiger (latter are commercial fonts, no link - sorry. I can send you screenshots of the fonts though and some resellers will likely provide some as well) for some reasonable choices. In addition, the hinter and font size/weight can have impact. Oh my god, using these fonts the stopwatch display is an eyesore. Thanks for the explanation, this thing has to be fixed, sure as hell. I will try with different labels for each digit. The problem now should be fixed. I've replaced QLabel with a custom widget which uses a horizontal layout with a QLabel for each digit, adding proper padding. The padding space is computed on the current font width (using QFontMetrics). This should take into account most fonts, even if I've tried only the fonts suggested by Thomas. If you have many other exotic fonts in your systems, further tests are welcome. Probably the best solution was to use a custom QLabel which overrides its paintEvent() function, but I didn't know how to deal with it, since it's too low level. Screenshot for a quick feedback (HandelGothic font): http://abload.de/img/kronometer2a2k3a.png Cheers, Elvis
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-04-23 14:28 GMT+02:00 Thomas Lübking thomas.luebk...@gmail.com: On Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 13:17:02 CEST, Elvis Angelaccio wrote: I don't understand. Since there are only numbers I think that your point is already accomplished. Nope. To get monospace glyphs for sure, you must select a monospace font - otherwise you're going by luck. At least on my system ;-) Have you found a particular font that doesn't look this way? Hundreds - it's pretty common and the more exotic the fonts get (script), the more obvious this becomes, but you may try Fontin [1], Bitstream Handel Gothic [2], Adobe Jenson or Linotype Frutiger (latter are commercial fonts, no link - sorry. I can send you screenshots of the fonts though and some resellers will likely provide some as well) for some reasonable choices. In addition, the hinter and font size/weight can have impact. Oh my god, using these fonts the stopwatch display is an eyesore. Thanks for the explanation, this thing has to be fixed, sure as hell. I will try with different labels for each digit. Elvis Cheers, Thomas [1] http://www.exljbris.com/fontin.html [2] http://fontpark.net/de/schriftart/handel-gothic-bt/# Please don't ask me whether that's a legal offer.
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
Final screenshot with all these changes: http://abload.de/img/kronometerdrkjq.png I would agree with Thomas, the right align is not the best idea imho.
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 13:17:02 CEST, Elvis Angelaccio wrote: I don't understand. Since there are only numbers I think that your point is already accomplished. Nope. To get monospace glyphs for sure, you must select a monospace font - otherwise you're going by luck. At least on my system ;-) Have you found a particular font that doesn't look this way? Hundreds - it's pretty common and the more exotic the fonts get (script), the more obvious this becomes, but you may try Fontin [1], Bitstream Handel Gothic [2], Adobe Jenson or Linotype Frutiger (latter are commercial fonts, no link - sorry. I can send you screenshots of the fonts though and some resellers will likely provide some as well) for some reasonable choices. In addition, the hinter and font size/weight can have impact. Cheers, Thomas [1] http://www.exljbris.com/fontin.html [2] http://fontpark.net/de/schriftart/handel-gothic-bt/# Please don't ask me whether that's a legal offer.
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-04-17 20:04 GMT+02:00 Ingo Klöcker kloec...@kde.org: On Wednesday 16 April 2014 12:56:01 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: So, the choice is between the branch test and test2. Let me know what do you prefer. For completeness the alternatives in details are: - branch test: no splitters, with dividers (i.e. 4 QFrames in a horizontal layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png This would look much better if you remove the ':' and '.' after the numbers. IMO the ':'/'.' are superfluous because the numbers are already clearly separated by the frame border. Also you should probably right-align the numbers. In particular, the hours. For the other numbers alignment probably doesn't matter. Moreover, I think it would look best if all four frames were the same size. Hi, thanks for your suggestions! I've committed all these changes on the test branch. I've applied the right alignment to all the labels because looks more consistent. (e.g when the window is full size). - branch test2: no splitters, no dividers (i.e. single QFrame with a grid layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-divideri4kce.png Here the ':'/'.' need to stay for obvious reasons. But you should try to make the spacing between the numbers and the ':'/'.' identical. Possible solution: Put the ':'/'.' into columns of their own. And right-align the hours. This one is not trivial. I could use columns on their own for the dividers, but these symbols are displayed only if there are numbers on their right. At the moment I handle this check in the QTimeFormat class, it would be difficult to move this logic to a widget class like QTimeDisplay is. Since also Albert agrees with the first alternative, probably the second one it's not worth of the effort. I'd also get rid of the upper toolbar. You do already have the essential tools in the lower toolbar and having two toolbars even with differently sized icons makes the UI look unnecessarily crowded. Final screenshot with all these changes: http://abload.de/img/kronometerdrkjq.png Just my two cents. Regards, Ingo Regards, Elvis
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
Am Freitag, 18. April 2014 schrieb Elvis Angelaccio : Final screenshot with all these changes: http://abload.de/img/kronometerdrkjq.png I think by right align, Ingo meant numerical, not pixelwise, ie the display should be 00 00 00 00 even if the left digit would be invisible It's actually that you probably best would fake a monospace font, so that the left digit stays in place while the right one iterates. You'd best drop QLabel and paint the widget yourself, but it's possible. Even using just more labels and custom layout management. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Wednesday 16 April 2014 12:56:01 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: So, the choice is between the branch test and test2. Let me know what do you prefer. For completeness the alternatives in details are: - branch test: no splitters, with dividers (i.e. 4 QFrames in a horizontal layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png This would look much better if you remove the ':' and '.' after the numbers. IMO the ':'/'.' are superfluous because the numbers are already clearly separated by the frame border. Also you should probably right-align the numbers. In particular, the hours. For the other numbers alignment probably doesn't matter. Moreover, I think it would look best if all four frames were the same size. - branch test2: no splitters, no dividers (i.e. single QFrame with a grid layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-divideri4kce.png Here the ':'/'.' need to stay for obvious reasons. But you should try to make the spacing between the numbers and the ':'/'.' identical. Possible solution: Put the ':'/'.' into columns of their own. And right-align the hours. I'd also get rid of the upper toolbar. You do already have the essential tools in the lower toolbar and having two toolbars even with differently sized icons makes the UI look unnecessarily crowded. Just my two cents. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
El Dijous, 17 d'abril de 2014, a les 20:04:07, Ingo Klöcker va escriure: On Wednesday 16 April 2014 12:56:01 Elvis Angelaccio wrote: So, the choice is between the branch test and test2. Let me know what do you prefer. For completeness the alternatives in details are: - branch test: no splitters, with dividers (i.e. 4 QFrames in a horizontal layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png This would look much better if you remove the ':' and '.' after the numbers. IMO the ':'/'.' are superfluous because the numbers are already clearly separated by the frame border. Also you should probably right-align the numbers. In particular, the hours. For the other numbers alignment probably doesn't matter. Moreover, I think it would look best if all four frames were the same size. I think this is the one that may look the best, agree with Ingo that removing the : and . probably makes sense. Cheers, Albert - branch test2: no splitters, no dividers (i.e. single QFrame with a grid layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-divideri4kce.png Here the ':'/'.' need to stay for obvious reasons. But you should try to make the spacing between the numbers and the ':'/'.' identical. Possible solution: Put the ':'/'.' into columns of their own. And right-align the hours. I'd also get rid of the upper toolbar. You do already have the essential tools in the lower toolbar and having two toolbars even with differently sized icons makes the UI look unnecessarily crowded. Just my two cents. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-04-15 22:27 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: El Dilluns, 14 d'abril de 2014, a les 11:35:02, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: 2014-04-14 1:06 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? I see your point, probably the splitters are unnecessary UI components for this use case. What do you think about an option in Interface settings? I could display by default a single QFrame (without splitters) and leave to the user an opt-in to allow the splitters. In this way I can reuse the existing code without too much refactoring. I just don't see the need for the splitters, why would someone want to have them? To be honest there are no real motivations, I just thought that a splitter could be a further feature. But indeed it's useless, at least if not used for a particular use case (see Thomas suggestions). I've just pushed a test branch without splitters, for a quick feedback look here: http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png If you want instead a single display without the dividers between hours/minutes/etc, then I can push another experimental branch test2. Something like this older version: http://abload.de/img/kronometer-running-la6ddg3.png But since now kronometer has those header labels above the numbers, I would need a tabular layout and from my earlier tests I remember that it looks ugly. Cheers, Albert Regards, Elvis
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-04-16 11:41 GMT+02:00 Elvis Angelaccio elvis.angelac...@kdemail.net: 2014-04-15 22:27 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: El Dilluns, 14 d'abril de 2014, a les 11:35:02, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: 2014-04-14 1:06 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? I see your point, probably the splitters are unnecessary UI components for this use case. What do you think about an option in Interface settings? I could display by default a single QFrame (without splitters) and leave to the user an opt-in to allow the splitters. In this way I can reuse the existing code without too much refactoring. I just don't see the need for the splitters, why would someone want to have them? To be honest there are no real motivations, I just thought that a splitter could be a further feature. But indeed it's useless, at least if not used for a particular use case (see Thomas suggestions). I've just pushed a test branch without splitters, for a quick feedback look here: http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png If you want instead a single display without the dividers between hours/minutes/etc, then I can push another experimental branch test2. Something like this older version: http://abload.de/img/kronometer-running-la6ddg3.png But since now kronometer has those header labels above the numbers, I would need a tabular layout and from my earlier tests I remember that it looks ugly. Sorry, forget my last statement. I've just tried using a QGridLayout and there is nothing wrong with it: http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-divideri4kce.png This alternative is in the branch test2. I just need to fix the QTimeDisplay::setTimeFormat() function. So, the choice is between the branch test and test2. Let me know what do you prefer. For completeness the alternatives in details are: - branch test: no splitters, with dividers (i.e. 4 QFrames in a horizontal layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-splittevdklc.png - branch test2: no splitters, no dividers (i.e. single QFrame with a grid layout): http://abload.de/img/kronometer-no-divideri4kce.png
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
2014-04-14 1:06 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: El Dilluns, 7 d'abril de 2014, a les 23:52:19, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: Hi all, Hi! Hi Albert, with this email I'm going to ask a review for Kronometer, in order to be accepted in KDE. Kronometer is a stopwatch application for KDE. It's meant to be simple but also customizable. Kronometer has been moved to kdereview from its previous location, playground/utils. I'm not sure whether to ask the admission in extragear-utils or in kdeutils. Personally I don't see it being a broad enough use case to make sense to be in kdeutils. What do others think? Have you asked at kde-utils-devel https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-utils-devel ? No, I have not yet asked. I will do it. What I'm looking for is the help of the KDE community with translations, packaging and bug-tracking. If the choice is definitely up to me, it would be nice to join the kdeutils module. Regarding the requirements for the admission: 1. There is the documentation in DocBook format. Thanks to Yuri Chornoivan for his help. 2. Source code is documented using the doxygen syntax, as suggested in the techbase documentation policy. 3. All the krazy code checker issues have been addressed. 4. No usability review has been done, but it's welcome. 5. Profiler: unfortunately I don't know how to do it. I used Valgrind and there shouldn't be memory leaks. I tried to use also Callgrind but I'm not able to understand its output. If a profiler check is strictly required, I'll need help for it. Nah, it's not like your app is doing anything very resource intensive so you don't need performance testing (just make sure you don't hog the cpu at 100% :D) Some small comment from my side: * You are passing an email address as bug address, you should leave the default bugzilla one there and create a kronometer bug entry in bugs.kde.org if you don't have power for that ask to the sysadmin guys about it. Yes, I put only a temporary email address, waiting for an official bugs entry. * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? I see your point, probably the splitters are unnecessary UI components for this use case. What do you think about an option in Interface settings? I could display by default a single QFrame (without splitters) and leave to the user an opt-in to allow the splitters. In this way I can reuse the existing code without too much refactoring. * The general/font/save settings probably would look nicer with a vertical spacer at the end that eats up empty space when the vertical space is bigger than needed (i.e. similar to what you have in interface settings). Good catch, there the spacers have been forgotten. Cheers, Albert Regards, Elvis 6. The application should be completely translatable, thanks again to the help of Yuri. Finally here the references: Kronometer repository in kdereview: *https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer* Kronometer quickgit: http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=kronometer.git Kronometer website: http://aelog.org/kronometer/http://www.aelog.org/kronometer/ If you want to quickly browse the code, you can also do it whit the Woboq's code browser here: http://aelog.org/codebrowser/kronometer/ Thank you for your time, Elvis Angelaccio
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
El Dilluns, 14 d'abril de 2014, a les 11:35:02, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: 2014-04-14 1:06 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? I see your point, probably the splitters are unnecessary UI components for this use case. What do you think about an option in Interface settings? I could display by default a single QFrame (without splitters) and leave to the user an opt-in to allow the splitters. In this way I can reuse the existing code without too much refactoring. I just don't see the need for the splitters, why would someone want to have them? Cheers, Albert
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org wrote: El Dilluns, 14 d'abril de 2014, a les 11:35:02, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: 2014-04-14 1:06 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org: * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? I see your point, probably the splitters are unnecessary UI components for this use case. What do you think about an option in Interface settings? I could display by default a single QFrame (without splitters) and leave to the user an opt-in to allow the splitters. In this way I can reuse the existing code without too much refactoring. I just don't see the need for the splitters, why would someone want to have them? Cheers, Albert FWIW, the first time I saw a screenshot of this application, these splitters shocked me too a bit. I guess the design will iterate anyway, no? Aleix
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org wrote: I just don't see the need for the splitters, why would someone want to have them? I see a limited usage (and only) in case they're collapsible (and grow by char width) what would allow to set a target scale (if you measure hours, you likely don't care about seconds et vv.) - but I think that it's mostly just skeumorphism (imitating individually wrapping hardware labels). Scale adjustment could be done better (automatic, resp. radiobutton or slider driven or a semi-automatic hybrid or different font sizes, or ...) on a virtual tool. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Kronometer now in KDE Review
El Dilluns, 7 d'abril de 2014, a les 23:52:19, Elvis Angelaccio va escriure: Hi all, Hi! with this email I'm going to ask a review for Kronometer, in order to be accepted in KDE. Kronometer is a stopwatch application for KDE. It's meant to be simple but also customizable. Kronometer has been moved to kdereview from its previous location, playground/utils. I'm not sure whether to ask the admission in extragear-utils or in kdeutils. Personally I don't see it being a broad enough use case to make sense to be in kdeutils. What do others think? Have you asked at kde-utils-devel https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-utils-devel ? What I'm looking for is the help of the KDE community with translations, packaging and bug-tracking. If the choice is definitely up to me, it would be nice to join the kdeutils module. Regarding the requirements for the admission: 1. There is the documentation in DocBook format. Thanks to Yuri Chornoivan for his help. 2. Source code is documented using the doxygen syntax, as suggested in the techbase documentation policy. 3. All the krazy code checker issues have been addressed. 4. No usability review has been done, but it's welcome. 5. Profiler: unfortunately I don't know how to do it. I used Valgrind and there shouldn't be memory leaks. I tried to use also Callgrind but I'm not able to understand its output. If a profiler check is strictly required, I'll need help for it. Nah, it's not like your app is doing anything very resource intensive so you don't need performance testing (just make sure you don't hog the cpu at 100% :D) Some small comment from my side: * You are passing an email address as bug address, you should leave the default bugzilla one there and create a kronometer bug entry in bugs.kde.org if you don't have power for that ask to the sysadmin guys about it. * Your choice of splitters to separate hours/minutes/seconds seems a bit weird do you think that anyone will use it to have something like very wide minutes and narrow the rest? * The general/font/save settings probably would look nicer with a vertical spacer at the end that eats up empty space when the vertical space is bigger than needed (i.e. similar to what you have in interface settings). Cheers, Albert 6. The application should be completely translatable, thanks again to the help of Yuri. Finally here the references: Kronometer repository in kdereview: *https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer* Kronometer quickgit: http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=kronometer.git Kronometer website: http://aelog.org/kronometer/http://www.aelog.org/kronometer/ If you want to quickly browse the code, you can also do it whit the Woboq's code browser here: http://aelog.org/codebrowser/kronometer/ Thank you for your time, Elvis Angelaccio
Kronometer now in KDE Review
Hi all, with this email I'm going to ask a review for Kronometer, in order to be accepted in KDE. Kronometer is a stopwatch application for KDE. It's meant to be simple but also customizable. Kronometer has been moved to kdereview from its previous location, playground/utils. I'm not sure whether to ask the admission in extragear-utils or in kdeutils. What I'm looking for is the help of the KDE community with translations, packaging and bug-tracking. If the choice is definitely up to me, it would be nice to join the kdeutils module. Regarding the requirements for the admission: 1. There is the documentation in DocBook format. Thanks to Yuri Chornoivan for his help. 2. Source code is documented using the doxygen syntax, as suggested in the techbase documentation policy. 3. All the krazy code checker issues have been addressed. 4. No usability review has been done, but it's welcome. 5. Profiler: unfortunately I don't know how to do it. I used Valgrind and there shouldn't be memory leaks. I tried to use also Callgrind but I'm not able to understand its output. If a profiler check is strictly required, I'll need help for it. 6. The application should be completely translatable, thanks again to the help of Yuri. Finally here the references: Kronometer repository in kdereview: *https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/kronometer* Kronometer quickgit: http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=kronometer.git Kronometer website: http://aelog.org/kronometer/http://www.aelog.org/kronometer/ If you want to quickly browse the code, you can also do it whit the Woboq's code browser here: http://aelog.org/codebrowser/kronometer/ Thank you for your time, Elvis Angelaccio
