Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/ --- (Updated April 10, 2013, 11:07 a.m.) Status -- This change has been m

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review30833 --- This review has been submitted with commit ed20d8ad768129a4788

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review30734 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Kevin Ottens On April 5, 2013, 2:46 p.m

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review30367 --- staging/kde4support/src/kdeui/klistwidget.h

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review29865 --- staging/kde4support/src/kdeui/klistwidget.h

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review29819 --- Given that autoselect is disabled by default I'd say it's ok no

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

> On March 16, 2013, 3:39 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > What about all the features KListWidget has and QListWidget hasn't? Are we > > ok with that? Or are we porting all the KListWidgets features to > > QListWidget? > > Kevin Ottens wrote: > Can you point to a feature which would be

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

> On March 16, 2013, 3:39 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > What about all the features KListWidget has and QListWidget hasn't? Are we > > ok with that? Or are we porting all the KListWidgets features to > > QListWidget? > > Kevin Ottens wrote: > Can you point to a feature which would be

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

> On March 16, 2013, 5:46 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > we are using the executed signal in some of the classes that is gone when > > you move to qlistwidget executed() is called itemActivated() in Qt. The point of that signal is that it's emitted on single click, in single-click mode, an

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review29326 --- we are using the executed signal in some of the classes that is

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

> On March 16, 2013, 3:39 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > What about all the features KListWidget has and QListWidget hasn't? Are we > > ok with that? Or are we porting all the KListWidgets features to > > QListWidget? > > Kevin Ottens wrote: > Can you point to a feature which would be

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

> On March 16, 2013, 3:39 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > What about all the features KListWidget has and QListWidget hasn't? Are we > > ok with that? Or are we porting all the KListWidgets features to > > QListWidget? Can you point to a feature which would be lost or is that rhethorical?

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review29318 --- Hm, I only see one end of the move the files deleted not the fi

Re: Review Request 109517: Port away from KListWidget to QListWidget

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109517/#review29317 --- What about all the features KListWidget has and QListWidget has