On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 14:25:02 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 02:11:11 AM Michael Pyne wrote:
> > I really think the underlying concern is less about that per se but is
> > instead two-pronged:
> ...
>
> > 2) Porting KClasses to functionally equivalent QClass
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 11:36:03 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
...
> the contentiousness of the issue is what made Steve take a step back. this
> is highly unfortunate as the objections were made without sound technical
> basis and the intensity of the push-back had nothing to do with technical
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 02:11:11 AM Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 00:56:58 John Layt wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 Sep 2011 23:14:03 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > A Dimarts, 6 de setembre de 2011, Stephen Kelly vàreu escriure:
> > > > I want to know what people expect
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:58:49 AM Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2011 09:36:41 todd rme wrote:
> > Several people have proposed moving to a separate module classes that
> > are needed for existing applications but pose a problem for new
> > developers, are no longer needed
On Thursday, September 8, 2011 12:00:29 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Yes, The QIcon cache is per application. (not global.)
>
> But what is really the performence gain?
finding icons in the theme structure we use is rather expensive. that's why
there is a cache in the first place. sharing that cache
On Thursday 08 September 2011 10:54:02 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 08, 2011 09:17:00 Jaime wrote:
> > We should assume that Qt5 will have some kind of global icon cache,
> >
> > valid for every Qt application run in one machine, like KIcon has now.
> > Am I Right?
>
> Per a
On Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:08:06 todd rme wrote:
> The original email explicitly said it would not be deprecated, so
> there appears to be some disagreement on this issue.
oh, the iron! :) the disagreement on the issue to deprecate came about due to
a disagreement on irc that was hardly te
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2011 09:36:41 todd rme wrote:
>> Several people have proposed moving to a separate module classes that
>> are needed for existing applications but pose a problem for new
>> developers, are no longer needed, or clutt
On Thursday 08 September 2011 09:36:41 todd rme wrote:
> Several people have proposed moving to a separate module classes that
> are needed for existing applications but pose a problem for new
> developers, are no longer needed, or clutter the API. From what they
> are saying, this seems to ease t
On Thursday, September 8, 2011 09:36:41 todd rme wrote:
> Several people have proposed moving to a separate module classes that
> are needed for existing applications but pose a problem for new
> developers, are no longer needed, or clutter the API. From what they
> are saying, this seems to ease
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 09:17:00 Jaime wrote:
> We should assume that Qt5 will have some kind of global icon cache,
> valid for every Qt application run in one machine, like KIcon has now.
> Am I Right?
Per application, it seems. That's probably still a bit behind KIcon's
KSharedDataCac
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jaime wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lets center in the technical aspects...
>
> We should assume that Qt5 will have some kind of global icon cache,
> valid for every Qt application run in one machine, like KIcon has now.
> Am I Right?
>
> Then, without removing KIcon, it coul
Hi,
Lets center in the technical aspects...
We should assume that Qt5 will have some kind of global icon cache,
valid for every Qt application run in one machine, like KIcon has now.
Am I Right?
Then, without removing KIcon, it could be a thin layer (~1Kb) over
QIcon. Why do not call QIcon
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:42:47PM +0300, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > In other words, before changing something so it needs porting, people
> > really should look at the real, actual codebase of a couple of big
> > projects that might b
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 16:01:05 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:42:47PM +0300, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > In other words, before changing something so it needs porting, people
> > really should look at the real, actual codebase of a couple of big
> > projects that m
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:42:47PM +0300, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> In other words, before changing something so it needs porting, people
> really should look at the real, actual codebase of a couple of big
> projects that might be affected.
>
it doesn't matter how many TLOC are affected if the cha
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 08:53:25 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
> > > Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo)
> > > is
> > > nowhere near the effort
>
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 08:53:25 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
> > Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo)
> > is
> > nowhere near the effort
>
> Just to make sure that everyone has the right perspective on the s
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 08:53:25 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
> > Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo)
> > is
> > nowhere near the effort
>
> Just to make sure that everyone has the right perspective on the s
On 07.09.11 02:57:29, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
> >
> >> Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo) is
> >> nowhere near the effort
> >
> > Just to make sure t
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
>
>> Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo) is
>> nowhere near the effort
>
> Just to make sure that everyone has the right perspective on the size of any
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 Sep, John Layt wrote:
> Porting a dozen or so lines from KIcon(foo) to KIconFactory::icon(foo) is
> nowhere near the effort
Just to make sure that everyone has the right perspective on the size of any
porting effort: Calligra alone has over 1200 of KIcon(foo) line
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 00:56:58 John Layt wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 Sep 2011 23:14:03 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > A Dimarts, 6 de setembre de 2011, Stephen Kelly vàreu escriure:
> > > I want to know what people expect in terms of source
> > > compatibility and what people are willing to acc
On Tuesday 06 Sep 2011 23:14:03 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> A Dimarts, 6 de setembre de 2011, Stephen Kelly vàreu escriure:
> > I want to know what people expect in terms of source
> > compatibility and what people are willing to accept. At the moment I
> > don't know those things.
>
> To be honest
A Dimarts, 6 de setembre de 2011, Stephen Kelly vàreu escriure:
> I want to know what people expect in terms of source
> compatibility and what people are willing to accept. At the moment I don't
> know those things.
To be honest, application developers were promised almost total source
compatibi
Hi,
I re-read the IRC log from the last email and noticed the recommendation of
and API review instead of meta-discussion, which I missed at the time.
That is probably a good recommendation. Posting the log was probably a bad
call on my part, and we can hopefully have a more useful discussion
26 matches
Mail list logo
