---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/
---
(Updated April 22, 2017, 10:35 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On March 17, 2015, 4:37 a.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
On March 17, 2015, 3:37 a.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
On March 16, 2015, 8:37 p.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
On March 17, 2015, 3:37 a.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
On mar. 17, 2015, 3:37 a.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
On March 17, 2015, 3:37 a.m., Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied to every KDE
package and I want to keep the discussion in a single place.
We already have a toggle option in CMake that is BUILD_TESTING. If Gentoo
wants to not
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/#review77603
---
I know this is merged already but this patch is being applied
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/#review75568
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- David Faure
On Feb. 7, 2015, 12:14
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/
---
(Updated Feb. 7, 2015, 12:14 a.m.)
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
On Feb. 1, 2015, 2:33 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Let me get this straight.
This patch makes the option BUILD_TESTING work, i.e. skip testing if not
set.
The solution that was committed to kwin, *additionally* sets BUILD_TESTING
to false if Qt5Test isn't available. This doesn't
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:58 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many philosophical discussions
about what users should be doing (IMHO, give them choice, this is
opensource).
Similar changes have been done in most other frameworks long ago, this is
most
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/#review75140
---
Let me get this straight.
This patch makes the option
On Jan. 23, 2015, 9:58 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many philosophical discussions
about what users should be doing (IMHO, give them choice, this is
opensource).
Similar changes have been done in most other frameworks long ago, this is
most
On Jan. 23, 2015, 9:58 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many philosophical discussions
about what users should be doing (IMHO, give them choice, this is
opensource).
Similar changes have been done in most other frameworks long ago, this is
most
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:58 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many philosophical discussions
about what users should be doing (IMHO, give them choice, this is
opensource).
Similar changes have been done in most other frameworks long ago, this is
most
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:58 p.m., David Faure wrote:
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many philosophical discussions
about what users should be doing (IMHO, give them choice, this is
opensource).
Similar changes have been done in most other frameworks long ago, this is
most
On Jan. 23, 2015, 1:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On gen. 23, 2015, 1:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 1:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 1:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 1:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
On Jan. 23, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/#review74633
---
Ship it!
Not sure why this is suddenly triggering many
On Jan. 23, 2015, 2:43 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is being done.
I would think that packagers should be building the tests and running them
on their platform and make sure everything passes. We have a strict policy
that all
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/#review74602
---
I'm not against this, but I am curious as to why this is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/
---
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
Repository: kio
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/122206/
---
(Updated Jan. 22, 2015, 7:48 p.m.)
Review request for KDE Frameworks.
31 matches
Mail list logo
