On Tuesday 25 June 2013 14:17:16 Thomas Lübking wrote: > On Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013 10:10:03 CEST, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: > > [Continuing the discussion started on > > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111171/ ] > > --------- > > > kdeglobals in mind. As such, I think this code should opt-in to > > inherit from > > kdeglobals, instead of expecting all code reading configuration to opt-out > > from it. > > As mentioned and you apparently agreed, i fear the "opt" path has already > been left. Breaking API to make developers take an explicit choice seems > inevitable.
Agreed. > Nevertheless, doing so to push them into actually understanding the KConfig > design and abilities and the implications of their choice seems reasonable > to me and worth the efforts to port the API (also no #ifdef requirement) Sounds good, what do KF5 people think? David or Kévin, would you accept such a change? > ------------------- > The rest is reply on general considerations and argumentation - not the > particular question on sane defaults of KConfig > ------------------------------- Let's nuke this part, we could go on for many mails on it. Aurélien
