---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/#review8378
---
Ship it!
this is massively bad on the part of qt :/ what a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/#review8379
---
This review has been submitted with commit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/#review8384
---
plasma/private/containment_p.h
On Nov. 22, 2011, 9:24 a.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
plasma/private/containment_p.h, line 71
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/diff/1/?file=41732#file41732line71
ibeg your pardon?
to me this looks like you delete the same entry forever (what *will*
crash at a point)
On Nov. 22, 2011, 9:24 a.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
plasma/private/containment_p.h, line 71
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/diff/1/?file=41732#file41732line71
ibeg your pardon?
to me this looks like you delete the same entry forever (what *will*
crash at a point)
On 22/11/11 01:51, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Given that we are already feature frozen, I am hereby requesting a
freeze exception for the following:
This request should go to the release team mailing list, shouldn't it?
Alex
On Nov. 22, 2011, 9:24 a.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
plasma/private/containment_p.h, line 71
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/diff/1/?file=41732#file41732line71
ibeg your pardon?
to me this looks like you delete the same entry forever (what *will*
crash at a point)
On Nov. 22, 2011, 9:24 a.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
plasma/private/containment_p.h, line 71
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/diff/1/?file=41732#file41732line71
ibeg your pardon?
to me this looks like you delete the same entry forever (what *will*
crash at a point)
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Alex Merry k...@randomguy3.me.uk wrote:
On 22/11/11 01:51, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Given that we are already feature frozen, I am hereby requesting a
freeze exception for the following:
This request should go to the release team mailing list, shouldn't
On Nov. 22, 2011, 9:24 a.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
plasma/private/containment_p.h, line 71
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103202/diff/1/?file=41732#file41732line71
ibeg your pardon?
to me this looks like you delete the same entry forever (what *will*
crash at a point)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103199/
---
Review request for KDE Runtime.
Description
---
This patch allows
On 11/20/2011 09:57 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
A Dijous, 17 de novembre de 2011, Aaron J. Seigo vàreu escriure:
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 09:48:15 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
In case someone is interested since it has never
On Tuesday, 22 de November de 2011 09.57.32, Thomas Lübking wrote:
is there any detailed (official) explanation on this?
Yes.
In Qt, we declared code that accessed the list in question *while* the items
are being deleted as broken by design, so we felt free to optimise qDeleteAll
by ignoring
On 11/22/2011 2:51 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
- Because 4.8 is probably the last release before 5.0
I don't think there is any plan to make 4.8 the last
release before 5.0. The plan with Frameworks develop-
ment is explicitly to avoid interrupting the develop-
ment and release of the
On 11/22/2011 1:23 PM, Eike Hein wrote:
... unless plans have changed and the Frameworks
porting is supposed to happen before Frameworks is
ported to Qt 5, which would be news to me (and also
make relatively sense given that it would mean break-
ing SC and BC two times in short succession).
On 20/11/11 20:57, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This sounds like a If you are going to disagree we don't want you in mantra,
which is kind of worrying.
I think it's more of a if you're going to keep returning to decisions
that have already been made, we don't want you in.
I'm not sure creating
On Tuesday, November 22, 2011 13:27:53 Thomas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FCbking?=
Given a simple mutex and a qWarning() -if hit- would not only have told
people but also prevented crashes by implementation rather than by
convention, I feel required to mention that this change of
implications -as done-
On 11/22/2011 1:32 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
The changes I need to commit need to go into kdelibs. AFAIK, post-4.8
releases will be based on kdelibs 4.8. In fact, kdelibs 4.8 is
essentially 4.7 (there is no 4.8 branch for kdelibs). Or am I wrong?
Right, I didn't realize you were talking
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Alex Merry wrote:
On 20/11/11 20:57, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This sounds like a If you are going to disagree we don't want you in
mantra, which is kind of worrying.
I think it's more of a if you're going to keep returning to decisions
that have already been
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Eike Hein wrote:
On 11/22/2011 1:32 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
The changes I need to commit need to go into kdelibs. AFAIK, post-4.8
releases will be based on kdelibs 4.8. In fact, kdelibs 4.8 is
essentially 4.7 (there is no 4.8 branch for kdelibs). Or am I
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote:
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Alex Merry wrote:
On 20/11/11 20:57, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This sounds like a If you are going to disagree we don't want you in
mantra, which is kind of worrying.
I think it's more
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote:
AFAIK (according to several mails from Dirk), there will be a kdelibs release
together with the rest of KDE SC 4.8, and it will also be called 4.8.
But it will be a feature-frozen bug fixed kdelibs 4.7 basically.
On Sunday 20 November 2011 12.49.46 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
so, if we're very honest with the situation, what some people are
actually asking for is their feature to be released sooner, freeze and
devel plans non- withstanding.
[]
we already have a consensus position, we already have
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org
wrote:
AFAIK (according to several mails from Dirk), there will be a kdelibs
release together with the rest of KDE SC 4.8, and it will also be called
4.8.
But
On Nov. 20, 2011, 3:37 a.m., Alex Fiestas wrote:
solid/solid/backends/udev/udevportablemediaplayer.cpp, line 109
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103028/diff/1/?file=40295#file40295line109
We have been returning mtp as the protocol that identify mtp
devices, the value of the mpi
On Nov. 20, 2011, 3:38 a.m., Alex Fiestas wrote:
Oh another thing, the CMakeList should check for media-player-info as an
optional dependency
OK, I'll add that. The problem is that media-player-info is runtime-only
depencency - even if not present during build, it will work if installed
I've read over the code changes for this, and it seems to be quite a
bit more invasive than a simple addition to the about dialog:
1) Changes to ui_standards.rc
This is a high-risk change. It affects every application that uses
XMLGUI and KParts plugins. I did quite a lot of work in this area in
On Nov. 20, 2011, 3:38 a.m., Alex Fiestas wrote:
Oh another thing, the CMakeList should check for media-player-info as an
optional dependency
Matěj Laitl wrote:
OK, I'll add that. The problem is that media-player-info is runtime-only
depencency - even if not present during build,
On Nov. 20, 2011, 3:37 a.m., Alex Fiestas wrote:
solid/solid/backends/udev/udevportablemediaplayer.cpp, line 109
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103028/diff/1/?file=40295#file40295line109
We have been returning mtp as the protocol that identify mtp
devices, the value of the mpi
On Nov. 20, 2011, 3:37 a.m., Alex Fiestas wrote:
solid/solid/backends/udev/udevportablemediaplayer.cpp, line 109
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103028/diff/1/?file=40295#file40295line109
We have been returning mtp as the protocol that identify mtp
devices, the value of the mpi
Hello,
2011/11/16 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org:
In case someone is interested since it has never mentioned in this list, there
is a frameworks mailing list at kde-frameworks-devel
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
I won't comment on having a separate list or
We're in the process of merging a review which will partly fix the sad
situation of MTP/MPI/iPod devices in libsolid, the review I'm talking
about is:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103028/
This as far as I know was (is) working with the linux-deprecated HAL
backend, so is something we
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Richard Moore richmoor...@gmail.com wrote:
I've read over the code changes for this, and it seems to be quite a
bit more invasive than a simple addition to the about dialog:
1) Changes to ui_standards.rc
This is a high-risk change. It affects every
I need advice- do the masters of KDE consider
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48062 to be important?
It's got a ton of votes, but I'll SWAG that a majority opf those votes
were really votes for https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96431 -- get
higher-numbered mouse buttons into the
The bug report is asking to let Mouse button 4 act as ALT key in order to move
windows
pressing buttons 1 and 4 at the same time.
That is definitely just a complicated mess.
Assigning shortcuts to mouse buttons as in 96431: Cool.
Bug 48062: Crap.
In any case: That's not even a KDE bug – should
2011/11/23 Markus Slopianka marku...@kdemail.net:
The bug report is asking to let Mouse button 4 act as ALT key in order to
move windows
pressing buttons 1 and 4 at the same time.
That is definitely just a complicated mess.
Assigning shortcuts to mouse buttons as in 96431: Cool.
Bug 48062:
36 matches
Mail list logo
