Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable
if SDO were in KDE's git...
On 06/06/2011 06:53 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 6 de
On 06/06/2011 10:51 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Martin Gräßlin mgraess...@kde.org wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
Next KWin. It currently depends upon Mesa 7.10. I have a local revert
in a private local branch which reverts the dependency
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
undermines our very development model.
In my opinion, almost always needing the development version of e.g. GTK
A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
On Tuesday 7 June 2011 01:26:17 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
Well, obviously a Tier 1 framework would have to use tr() instead of
i18n() for its translation needs.
Are we still going
- Original Message -
IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that states that you
can only depend on stuff that is available in the
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 07:53:28 Tom Albers wrote:
- Original Message -
IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that states
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:32:09 AM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
undermines our very development model.
In my
- Original Message -
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 02:00:20 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2011 19:41:15 Maksim Orlovich wrote:
* all new features will be developed using the recommended git
workflow
(pending publication; Cornelius is working on that one);
On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 08:39:58 Inge Wallin wrote:
So a well defined API that applications could use, and a well isolated way
to include a set of implementations would be nice. We are dealing with
the best way to make this happen is to create a concrete plan and propose it.
for
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:11:59 AM Tom Albers wrote:
- Original Message -
...
a documented git workflow is new, but needed.
Yes, yes, yes. 100 %. We really need that. For git newbies (like me)
and to
avoid total chaos. And so that it stays possible to contribute to
any
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
frameworks use pure based Qt/Linguist solutions which does not fit either in
what
On 07.06.11 11:51:29, Manuel Sput Nickschas wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
frameworks use pure based
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2011 00:38:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Right, however there's also a plan ATM to get the settings between KLocale
and QLocale shared. John is working on that right now, so it depends a bit
on the outcome, in any cases the situation is likely to improve on that
particular point.
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2011 10:51:29 Manuel Sput Nickschas wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:46:54 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
This means that if you want Tier 1 frameworks to be translatable you need
either to teach Qt to understand gettext files natively or to make Tier 1
frameworks use pure
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
also use SDO master. But for
A Tuesday, June 07, 2011, John Layt va escriure:
We discussed translation briefly at Platform 11 and Qt moving to or
supporting .po is something we really want to push for at QCS. I really
hope we have some people knowledgable about translation at QCS able to
argue the point, otherwise please
16 matches
Mail list logo
