On 09.06.11; 24. nädal 22:37, Richard Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Hasso Tepper wrote:
>> Which is in general showstopper for bigger stuff - PKCS#11 support. See
>> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116201.
>
> What about the current support for client certificates is insuffi
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 06:12:22 AM Richard Moore wrote:
> http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Improving_Qts_SSL_Support
Looks fairly complete to me. I'm not sure renegotiation info is all that
niche, but its all a matter of perspective.
> If you know something that is needed for KDE but isn't listed t
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Cornelius Schumacher
wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011 John Layt wrote:
>>
>> Besides the inconsistency that
>> Torgey also found, the one part of the command flow I'm wondering about is
>> whether for the simple workflow we tell them to push or merge their
>> comm
On Thursday, June 9, 2011 13:50:59 David Jarvie wrote:
> One side effect of using integration branches in what used to be
> kdelibs/kdepimlibs/kdebase is that new features aren't likely to be widely
> tested until later in the development cycle than previously.
features should not remain in integ
On Thursday 09 June 2011 John Layt wrote:
>
> Besides the inconsistency that
> Torgey also found, the one part of the command flow I'm wondering about is
> whether for the simple workflow we tell them to push or merge their
> commits into master?
If it's a local branch, rebase the branch, merge it
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Dawit A wrote:
> Would asking for client certficate authentication support be out of
> the scope or does Qt's SSL already support that ? Last I checked it
> did not and there is a pending but report about this against kio_http.
> See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cg
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Hasso Tepper wrote:
> On 08.06.11; 24. nädal 23:24, Dawit A wrote:
>> Would asking for client certficate authentication support be out of
>> the scope or does Qt's SSL already support that ? Last I checked it
>> did not and there is a pending but report about this a
> On June 9, 2011, 9:49 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > my biggest question with this change would be performance. QFileInfo is not
> > fast, and to make matters "worse" this code in KStandardDirs influences
> > start up speed. have you measured the performance after this change
> > relative t
On Thursday 09 Jun 2011 17:34:57 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > This part I fully agree with, however later in the example section it
> > seems like rebasing should be done prior to review. Is the examples
> > correct?
>
> The examples need some rea
On Thursday 09 June 2011 David Jarvie wrote:
>
> In order to get good testing coverage, there should normally only be one
> integration branch per git module. Otherwise, testing coverage will be
> split between the competing integration branches.
Right.
--
Cornelius Schumacher
On Thursday 09 June 2011 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
>
> This part I fully agree with, however later in the example section it seems
> like rebasing should be done prior to review. Is the examples correct?
The examples need some reality check, ideally with detailed actual git
commands. In general it's
On Thu, June 9, 2011 5:22 pm, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
>>
>> And what if there are multiple branches on the same module at the same
>> time? Which one of these branches, or master (or release?) is going to
>> get testing coverage?
>
> The idea is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101560/
---
Review request for kdelibs.
Summary
---
Attached patch fixes a crash
On Thursday 09 June 2011 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
>
> Will we have a single person review every single commit to master, too?
We don't have formal rules about who reviews commits. That will be done by the
developers and maintainers who care, just like it is done now.
> > We might have a "Aaron's
On Wednesday 08 June 2011 19.03.01 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> As you already know, we have discussed the git workflow for KDE at the
> Platform 11 sprint, and have come up with a recommendation. Please find the
> full text here: http://community.kde.org/KDE_Core/Platform_11/Git_Workflow
"""
Loc
On Thursday 09 Jun 2011 15:31:42 John Layt wrote:
> We would like to co-ordinate our efforts at QtCS to ensure the best
> possible outcome for KDE and Qt. To help this we would like all KDE
> community members attending to list their name on the KDE at QtCS wiki
> page [2]. Please indicate if you
The Qt Contributors Summit [1] is happening Berlin from 16-18 June to discuss
the future of Qt under Open Governance. Many members of the KDE community
will be there either as direct representatives of KDE or on behalf of their
employer. A rough estimate puts our presence at about 10% of the 2
> To make this happen we need to make these branches visible, communicate
> what's
> going on in them, and advertise them to other developers and adventurous
> users. One project which does that successfully is the Kernel, so maybe we
> could do it in a similar way.
Will we have a single person re
On Thursday 09 June 2011 David Jarvie wrote:
>
> One side effect of using integration branches in what used to be
> kdelibs/kdepimlibs/kdebase is that new features aren't likely to be widely
> tested until later in the development cycle than previously. While they
> are in integration branches, on
On Wed, June 8, 2011 6:03 pm, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> As you already know, we have discussed the git workflow for KDE at the
> Platform 11 sprint, and have come up with a recommendation. Please find
> the
> full text here: http://community.kde.org/KDE_Core/Platform_11/Git_Workflow
>
> The cor
Hi Scott,
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 03:13:43 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It may be that there was more to the release implications of the git
> transition than "we're sure it'll get figured out by people who actually
> care about releases", but if there was it's not apparent to me.
I don't think the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101554/#review3799
---
my biggest question with this change would be performance. QFile
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101558/
---
Review request for KDE Base Apps.
Summary
---
Show the correct url in
On 08.06.11; 24. nädal 23:24, Dawit A wrote:
> Would asking for client certficate authentication support be out of
> the scope or does Qt's SSL already support that ? Last I checked it
> did not and there is a pending but report about this against kio_http.
> See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?i
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101554/
---
Review request for kdelibs, kdewin and David Faure.
Summary
---
Incre
25 matches
Mail list logo
