On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Olivier Goffart <ogoff...@kde.org> wrote:
> Le Monday 25 April 2011, Michael Pyne a écrit : > > On Sunday, April 24, 2011 16:42:22 Christoph Feck wrote: > > > On Sunday 24 April 2011 15:04:38 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > > Olivier, these are your moc changes. > > > > > > Given that Q_PRIVATE_SLOT is a private definition, shouldn't we rather > > > fix the code in KDE? > > > > Perhaps, but let's let the developers making the changes verify that this > > was an intended side effect of the change. ;) > > Exactly, we rather be aware of breakage, so we can try not to break > anything. > > In this case, we have to see if we can fix it in Qt. I do not see any > solution > on top of my head. We have to discuss if it is ok to break this use case if > there is no solution. > But it is true that this is use of private API, over which we do not > support > compatibility, so i think we may keep this change in Qt, and the change can > be > fixed in KDE > Ok, Qt 4.8 has some accessibility fixes me and my gsoc student would like to use to further push the qt-atspi development. Those involved with the scheduler code how/when could this get fixed? thanks, Jeremy
