On March 17, 2013, 2:05 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
But why? KFileMetadataReader and the other KFileMetadataStuff should just
be marked as deprecated. Why are we porting them? We already have better
alternatives in the nepomuk-widgets repository.
Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109551/#review29421
---
kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp
On March 18, 2013, 7:25 a.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp, line 180
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109551/diff/1/?file=120230#file120230line180
why should they? you already have the solution in the previous hunk.
Doh, I'm just a silly moose. Thanks
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109526/#review29426
---
Looks good, can become a shit it once the patch in Qt his
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109527/#review29428
---
Looks good to me ship it once the Qt patch hits qt5.git.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109551/#review29430
---
kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109524/#review29431
---
kdeui/tests/kreplacetest.cpp
On March 17, 2013, 2:05 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
But why? KFileMetadataReader and the other KFileMetadataStuff should just
be marked as deprecated. Why are we porting them? We already have better
alternatives in the nepomuk-widgets repository.
Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark
On March 17, 2013, 2:05 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
But why? KFileMetadataReader and the other KFileMetadataStuff should just
be marked as deprecated. Why are we porting them? We already have better
alternatives in the nepomuk-widgets repository.
Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark
On March 16, 2013, 7:22 p.m., Stephen Kelly wrote:
tier1/itemmodels/src/kselectionproxymodel.cpp, line 2148
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109524/diff/1/?file=120104#file120104line2148
Why do you remove this?
Miquel Canes Gonzalez wrote:
This assert checks if a pointer is
On March 16, 2013, 7:22 p.m., Stephen Kelly wrote:
tier1/kcodecs/autotests/kcharsetstest.cpp, line 135
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109524/diff/1/?file=120105#file120105line135
Warnings are sometimes valid and create a todo list. Changes like this
look like just hiding the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109549/
---
(Updated March 18, 2013, 7:51 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
Hi,
the first RC for CMake 2.8.11 has been released.
Please give it good testing, it contains lots of changes in the core.
Btw. Steveire is this time leading the commit statistics :-)
Alex
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [CMake] CMake 2.8.11-rc1 ready for testing
Date:
On Saturday 16 March 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Hi there,
== What happened? ==
I've pushed a commit which removed much of the CMake code which calls
include_directories().
http://commits.kde.org/kdelibs/56d571a223e00ffed4cb682eb098c5b1e347fa70
This mail is an explanation of things
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109551/#review29478
---
kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp
On March 18, 2013, 10:04 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp, line 193
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/109551/diff/2/?file=120310#file120310line193
i don't think eating the sleep is a good idea. i'm sure i added it for
a reason (in a previous life ^^).
16 matches
Mail list logo
