On Nov. 27, 2014, 7:29 a.m., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
I actually would prefer no such hack in the public headers.
If that is just to make porting easier, you can use that locally as a patch
until the kdevplatform code is cleaned up.
Milian Wolff wrote:
I still don't get why you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121263/
---
(Updated Feb. 8, 2015, 2:42 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On Nov. 27, 2014, 7:29 vorm., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
I actually would prefer no such hack in the public headers.
If that is just to make porting easier, you can use that locally as a patch
until the kdevplatform code is cleaned up.
Milian Wolff wrote:
I still don't get why you
On Nov. 27, 2014, 7:29 a.m., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
I actually would prefer no such hack in the public headers.
If that is just to make porting easier, you can use that locally as a patch
until the kdevplatform code is cleaned up.
I still don't get why you think this is a hack, or
On Nov. 27, 2014, 7:29 a.m., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
I actually would prefer no such hack in the public headers.
If that is just to make porting easier, you can use that locally as a patch
until the kdevplatform code is cleaned up.
Milian Wolff wrote:
I still don't get why you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121263/
---
(Updated Nov. 27, 2014, 1:15 a.m.)
Review request for KDE Frameworks,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/121263/#review70996
---
I actually would prefer no such hack in the public headers.
