---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107973/#review25562
---
Ship it!
Looks good! You can commit, thanks.
- Kevin Ottens
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107973/#review25561
---
Ship it!
Looks good! You can commit, thanks.
- Kevin Ottens
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107973/
---
(Updated Jan. 14, 2013, 11:18 p.m.)
Review request for KDE Frameworks and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107973/#review25523
---
It's really getting close now. Mostly comments on the coding st
El Dilluns, 14 de gener de 2013, a les 14:37:49, David Faure va escriure:
> On Sunday 13 January 2013 14:21:05 Jon Severinsson wrote:
> > I was under the impression that dropping Qt4 support was in favour of Qt5
> > released tarballs, eg that we would support both latest 5.0.x and 5.1-git
> > (curr
> On Jan. 13, 2013, 6:45 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > and why exactly do you sleep instead of looping with waitforreadyread?
>
> Jon Severinsson wrote:
> Because that would be an (almost) busy-loop (there are already *some*
> data, so waitForReadyRead could return before the timeout)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108385/#review25500
---
This review has been submitted with commit
21cd5afbbaac2737742
> On Jan. 13, 2013, 6:45 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > and why exactly do you sleep instead of looping with waitforreadyread?
>
> Jon Severinsson wrote:
> Because that would be an (almost) busy-loop (there are already *some*
> data, so waitForReadyRead could return before the timeout)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108389/
---
(Updated Jan. 14, 2013, 3:59 p.m.)
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
Ch
On Sunday 13 January 2013 14:21:05 Jon Severinsson wrote:
> I was under the impression that dropping Qt4 support was in favour of Qt5
> released tarballs, eg that we would support both latest 5.0.x and 5.1-git
> (currently dev, eventually stable) for a while (ie until 5.1.0-rc1). I'm
> currently ru
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108389/#review25459
---
Eek, that's 5 duplicates of the same 4 lines of code. Can't thi
11 matches
Mail list logo