---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/
---
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
Description
---
Port some uses of
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/#review19173
---
Thanks for looking at this! Looks mostly good, apart from two i
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106500/#review19174
---
every single change of this patch is a regression
- Oswald Bud
> On Sept. 19, 2012, 5:11 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > every single change of this patch is a regression
Very encouraging, as always. Care to give us more details?
- David
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
> On Sept. 19, 2012, 5:11 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > every single change of this patch is a regression
>
> David Faure wrote:
> Very encouraging, as always. Care to give us more details?
the reasons for kprocess' existence didn't go away, so every change away from
it is by definit
> On Sept. 19, 2012, 5:11 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > every single change of this patch is a regression
>
> David Faure wrote:
> Very encouraging, as always. Care to give us more details?
>
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the reasons for kprocess' existence didn't go away, so ever
> On Sept. 19, 2012, 5:11 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > every single change of this patch is a regression
>
> David Faure wrote:
> Very encouraging, as always. Care to give us more details?
>
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the reasons for kprocess' existence didn't go away, so ever
On Thursday 20 September 2012 22:02:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> ed71a84ca2178 is arguably broken.
>
> yes. a rather suboptimal replacement. before you ask, search the core-devel
> archive shortly before the time the new kprocess was added.
I can't do *everything* in the KDE Frameworks 5 effort
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:42:26PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 20 September 2012 22:02:03 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > yes. a rather suboptimal replacement. before you ask, search the core-devel
> > archive shortly before the time the new kprocess was added.
>
> I can't do *everything
