Several small fixes to allow RenameDialog form and its widgets resize
itself according to extra information gathered for source and destination
items.
Without these fixes RenameDialog in common case appears as shown on
screenshot 1 (without preview for files) and 2 (without preview for
On Thursday 17 November 2011 00.14.23 Scott Kitterman wrote:
the best way to deal with it is not to consider it a fork of kdelibs
but the next version of kdelibs (that's what it is) and help out with
it
I'd be interested if I could, but learning C++ didn't make it to the topof
the TODO
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 mentioned in this list,
there is a frameworks mailing list at kde-frameworks-devel
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/#review8254
---
Ship it!
looks very nice and thorough.
as for branch: it's a
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:07:51 Jaime wrote:
Hello,
Probably I've missed something, or what I propose is unpractical (or too
late), but here I go, anyway:
If the frameworks branch still depends on Qt 4,
Is it possible to have a public version of it once the
refactoring has been
On Nov. 17, 2011, 9:20 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
looks very nice and thorough.
as for branch: it's a bug fix for sure and should go into the KDE/4.7
branch. that gets merged into master on a semi-regular basis, so don't
worry about master (it'll happen for you). it will also get
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/
---
Review request for kdelibs.
Description
---
Trivial c++ fixes for
On 11/17/2011 04:05 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
On Thursday 17 November 2011 00.14.23 Scott Kitterman wrote:
the best way to deal with it is not to consider it a fork of kdelibs
but the next version of kdelibs (that's what it is) and help out with
it
I'd be interested if I could, but learning
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8262
---
Looks good except for one item.
- David Faure
On Nov. 17,
On Nov. 17, 2011, 9:20 a.m., Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
looks very nice and thorough.
as for branch: it's a bug fix for sure and should go into the KDE/4.7
branch. that gets merged into master on a semi-regular basis, so don't
worry about master (it'll happen for you). it will also get
2011/11/17 Rolf Eike Beer k...@opensource.sf-tec.de
Several small fixes to allow RenameDialog form and its widgets resize
itself according to extra information gathered for source and destination
items.
Without these fixes RenameDialog in common case appears as shown on
screenshot 1
2011/11/17 Christoph Feck christ...@maxiom.de
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/
On November 17th, 2011, 9:20 a.m., *Aaron J. Seigo* wrote:
looks very nice and thorough.
as for branch: it's a bug fix for sure and should
On Nov. 17, 2011, 12:59 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Looks good except for one item.
which item?
- Jaime Torres
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8262
I think this thread is indeed quite a dead end, but since you mentioned my
feature:
Thomas Zander wrote:
And I'm still not seeing anyone put in the in comparison tiny fraction of
time of porting the auto-download plasma thing to frameworks.
Let me clear up a few things:
* The problem isn't
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8264
---
kutils/kpluginselector.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103103/#review8267
---
From a pure perspective of the code it is a +1 from me.
I would
On Thursday 17 November 2011 13:33:25 David Faure wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8264
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102388/#review8269
---
- David Faure
On Aug. 24, 2011, 4:29 p.m., Cyril Oblikov
On Nov. 17, 2011, 2:33 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Cyril, can you rebase your changes on top of the kdelibs frameworks branch,
compile, and commit there?
- David
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/
---
(Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 2:37 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8271
---
Ship it!
Ah, no, you're right, I read 'man operator' wrong.
+
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103165/#review8272
---
This review has been submitted with commit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103168/
---
(Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 3:41 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs, Thomas
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103166/
---
(Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 3:41 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs and Aaron
On Nov. 17, 2011, 2:33 p.m., David Faure wrote:
David Faure wrote:
Cyril, can you rebase your changes on top of the kdelibs frameworks
branch, compile, and commit there?
Hi David.
I'm currently working on this dialog together with Björn Balazs. Now we a
mostly concentrated on the
On Thursday 17 November 2011, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
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 mentioned in this
list, there is a frameworks mailing list at
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/#review8276
---
This review has been submitted with commit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102986/
---
(Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 6:53 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
Changes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103176/
---
Review request for KDE Base Apps and David Faure.
Description
---
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 18:17:30 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
i was not sure i agreed with that approach, but i have to say that
the last few threads on this topic on k-c-d have supported their
point :(
I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion.
If the signal to noise ratio here
2011/11/17 Andras Mantia aman...@kde.org:
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 18:17:30 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
i was not sure i agreed with that approach, but i have to say that
the last few threads on this topic on k-c-d have supported their
point :(
I would draw exactly the opposite
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103176/#review8281
---
Ship it!
OK ship it although it might mask off deeper
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103160/
---
(Updated Nov. 17, 2011, 6:18 p.m.)
Review request for kdelibs.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103168/#review8284
---
the function definitely seems to be a misnomer; according to
On Nov. 17, 2011, 9:28 p.m., Ruurd Pels wrote:
konqueror/src/konqview.h, line 280
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103176/diff/1/?file=41389#file41389line280
OK I can agree with returning an empty list if m_service == null
however I also think we need to come up with reasons WHY
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103176/#review8286
---
This review has been submitted with commit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103176/#review8287
---
This review has been submitted with commit
37 matches
Mail list logo
