On Tuesday 16 September 2014 20:12:26 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Dimarts, 16 de setembre de 2014, a les 12:37:31, Milian Wolff va
escriure:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 21:50:57 Ben Cooksley wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Martin Gräßlin mgraess...@kde.org
wrote:
On Tuesday
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 14:19:44 Marco Martin wrote:
right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it would
be used by plasma too to the two identically named classes, new and
deprecated would
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 11:06:50 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Is the name ok for everybody? potential name clashes?
as it used to be namespaces before, what about using a namespace KPackage
and just call the classes:
KPackage::Package
KPackage::PackageStructure
KPackage::PackageTrader
Hi all,
I just prepared moving kglobalacceld from plasma-workspace into kglobalaccel.
You can find the code in my personal clone of kglobalaccel at [1] in branch
master.
The following steps were performed so far:
* filter-branch on plasma-workspace to just have all kglobalacceld commits
* move
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org wrote:
El Dilluns, 15 de setembre de 2014, a les 17:45:06, Aleix Pol va escriure:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org
wrote:
Hi David, kf-ers
KLanguageButton is using kf5_entry.desktop as
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:20:10 Marco Martin wrote:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 11:06:50 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Is the name ok for everybody? potential name clashes?
as it used to be namespaces before, what about using a namespace KPackage
and just call the classes:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120243/
---
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
Repository: knotifications
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120243/#review66738
---
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a
On Sept. 17, 2014, 12:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
- David
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
On Sept. 17, 2014, 2:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
David Edmundson wrote:
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
+1 for removing the fallback.
- Martin
---
This is an
On Sept. 17, 2014, 2:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
David Edmundson wrote:
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
+1 for removing the fallback.
I guess the ifdef part was about keeping the support
On Sept. 17, 2014, 2:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
David Edmundson wrote:
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
+1 for removing the fallback.
Luigi Toscano wrote:
I guess the ifdef part was
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Marco Martin notm...@gmail.com wrote:
right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it
would
be used by plasma too to the two identically named classes, new and
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 17:02:02 Vishesh Handa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Marco Martin notm...@gmail.com wrote:
right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it
would
be
Hello devs,
Currently our Policies wiki page[1] says the minimum supported
compilers for KF5 are gcc 4.5, clang 3.1 and MSVC 2010.
Due to the use of range-based for loops, ThreadWeaver doesn't compile
on MSVC2010 or gcc4.5. kcoreaddons doesn't build on gcc 4.5 because it
uses nullptr. More
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119607/#review66777
---
Thanks for the patch. A few comments:
Is there any sort of
On Sept. 14, 2014, 3:27 p.m., Frank Reininghaus wrote:
src/core/kcoredirlister.cpp, line 2799
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119607/diff/2/?file=301215#file301215line2799
This will only work for local files. I'm not sure if we would want to
support the .hidden mechanism also
On Sept. 14, 2014, 3:27 p.m., Frank Reininghaus wrote:
I've added some comments inline. You should wait for David's feedback
though.
BTW, do other platforms, which support .hidden files already, only
support full file names in that file, or can you add wildcards (such as
*~,
On Sept. 14, 2014, 12:26 p.m., Mark Gaiser wrote:
My attempt at this. Feel free to use it as you see fit.
diff --git a/src/urifilters/shorturi/kshorturifilter.cpp
b/src/urifilters/shorturi/kshorturifilter.cpp
index 00668d9..6c35393 100644
---
On Monday 15 September 2014 23:12:19 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Hi David, kf-ers
I can't find any .po inside kdelibs4support tarball.
David can you make sure the files get packaged and installed for the next
frameworks release?
Indeed, they aren't picked up by make_rc_tag.sh because all
El Dimecres, 17 de setembre de 2014, a les 22:53:35, David Faure va escriure:
On Monday 15 September 2014 23:12:19 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Hi David, kf-ers
I can't find any .po inside kdelibs4support tarball.
David can you make sure the files get packaged and installed for the next
Hi,
are there any plans to document which external resources like icons are
exactly needed by the individual framework modules?
Problem:
Imagine a developer planning to use KDE frameworks to write a program for a
platform with no proper package system, so all deps of the program need to be
On Set. 17, 2014, 2:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
David Edmundson wrote:
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
+1 for removing the fallback.
Luigi Toscano wrote:
I guess the ifdef part was
Hi guys,
On 17 Sep 2014, at 08:32 , Martin Gräßlin mgraess...@kde.org wrote:
If the minimum is 5.2 it would obviously be best to test compile frameworks
against 5.2. But that might make things more difficult on the CI system as we
have software depending on 5.3.
this thread makes it seem as
On Sept. 17, 2014, 2:55 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
Maybe we want to ifdef it? We won't require Qt 5.4 in a while...
David Edmundson wrote:
It doesn't require Qt5.4.
Martin Gräßlin wrote:
+1 for removing the fallback.
Luigi Toscano wrote:
I guess the ifdef part was
25 matches
Mail list logo
