On Wednesday 05 of August 2009 08:17:03 John Tapsell wrote:
> Agreed. I can't get the hang of svn backporting, and so I simply never do
> it.
I'm a bit scared hearing this..
Maybe because being packager I usually rely on developers to decide about the
way product is supposed to look like (not t
A Dimecres, 5 d'agost de 2009, John Tapsell va escriure:
> 2009/8/4 Aaron J. Seigo :
> >> - especially with multiple branches synchronization - which leads to
> >> bugfixes sometimes not hitting latest 'soon-to-be-stable' branch (4.3
> >> now) or not hitting on time, as developers seem to be devote
2009/8/4 Aaron J. Seigo :
>> - especially with multiple branches synchronization - which leads to
>> bugfixes sometimes not hitting latest 'soon-to-be-stable' branch (4.3 now)
>> or not hitting on time, as developers seem to be devoted to trunk
>> (sometimes even when 4.3 in this case is not releas
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Indeed, but unfortunately it as well sheds some light on amount of bugs
> actually introduced during development, and from downstream point of view
> it makes all 4.x.0 releases to be treated like development releases.
that's fine; if that's the
Op Tuesday 04 August 2009 15:19 schreef u:
> On Tuesday 04 of August 2009 11:14:20 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 August 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> > > We still get lots of flack for the complete mess we made of 4.0 etc.
> >
> > i won't even argue the basis of your statement, but i will s
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Partially it's because KDE developers seem to be overloaded with amount of
> work - especially with multiple branches synchronization - which leads to
> bugfixes sometimes not hitting latest 'soon-to-be-stable' branch (4.3 now) or
> not hitting on time, as developers se
On Tuesday 04 of August 2009 11:14:20 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> > We still get lots of flack for the complete mess we made of 4.0 etc.
>
> i won't even argue the basis of your statement, but i will say that
> regardless of what anyone thinks about 4.0
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
> We still get lots of flack for the complete mess we made of 4.0 etc.
i won't even argue the basis of your statement, but i will say that regardless
of what anyone thinks about 4.0 it should not create subsequent paralysis and
start us down a path
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:58:44 John Tapsell wrote:
> 2009/8/4 Dirk Mueller :
> > On Monday 03 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
> >> Essentially, it's a highly noticable visual
> >> glitch and a functional regression.
> >
> > We're too late in the process to wait for this for 4.3.0. Hopefully it
>
2009/8/4 Dirk Mueller :
> On Monday 03 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
>
>> Essentially, it's a highly noticable visual
>> glitch and a functional regression.
>
> We're too late in the process to wait for this for 4.3.0. Hopefully it gets
> solved for 4.3.1. I'm very sorry.
I beg you to can change y
Dirk Mueller wrote:
> We're too late in the process to wait for this for 4.3.0. Hopefully it gets
> solved for 4.3.1. I'm very sorry.
That's ok, the consensus seems to be that it's not
a blocker. We'll just have to make sure it's fixed
in time for 4.3.1; I'll look into that now that my
main dev
On Monday 03 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
> Essentially, it's a highly noticable visual
> glitch and a functional regression.
We're too late in the process to wait for this for 4.3.0. Hopefully it gets
solved for 4.3.1. I'm very sorry.
Greetings,
Dirk
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> You may call it a "feature regression", the author of konsole might call
> it a conscious decision. Looking at the context menu of the kpart and
> the "real" app, they are having the same options. So I guess this might
> have been done on purpose.
That's how things started
On 03.08.09 02:32:50, Eike Hein wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > it's not a data loss bug, just not a very pretty thing. it also only seems
> > to
> > affect the top-left of the scrolled viewport. this is something that would
> > be
> > very good to fix in 4.3.1 for sure, but i don't think it
On Sunday 02 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
> Michael Pyne wrote:
> > I'm not sure I would call it a *blocker* either, but this is *the*
> > terminal application we're talking about.
it doesn't affect konsole itself, just users of the kpart (at least according
to my testing here.. shout if i'm w
Michael Pyne wrote:
> I'm not sure I would call it a *blocker* either, but this is *the* terminal
> application we're talking about. The effect is also prominent in Yakuake so
> it probably affects all users of KonsolePart.
It's actually specific to the KPart, so yeah, I'm
going to drown in bug
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> it's not a data loss bug, just not a very pretty thing. it also only seems to
> affect the top-left of the scrolled viewport. this is something that would be
> very good to fix in 4.3.1 for sure, but i don't think it's a release blocker?
Dunno, that's what I'm wondering :
On Sunday 02 August 2009 20:01:01 you wrote:
> On Sunday 02 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this one seems to be fairly serious:
> >
> > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186745
>
> it's not a data loss bug, just not a very pretty thing. it also only seems
> to affect the top-lef
On Sunday 02 August 2009, Eike Hein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this one seems to be fairly serious:
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186745
it's not a data loss bug, just not a very pretty thing. it also only seems to
affect the top-left of the scrolled viewport. this is something that would be
ve
Hi,
this one seems to be fairly serious:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186745
Basically, when you open the context menu in the
Konsole KPart, most of the time you'll end up
with the string "No text" overlayed over the ter-
minal in the top-left corner. Also, the context
menu has regresse
20 matches
Mail list logo
