Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/#review86951 --- autotests/fallbackconfigresourcestest.cpp (line 25)

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/ --- (Updated Oct. 17, 2015, 12:01 p.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

> On Oct. 17, 2015, 12:23 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > I have no opinion on /kconfig vs /kconfig5. It's internal, we can fix it at > > any time, so whether we change it now, or for kf6, or never... makes no > > difference. I use /kconfig then, and it is not that internal, e.g. as soon as

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/ --- (Updated Oct. 17, 2015, 12:33 p.m.) Status -- This change has been

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

> On Oct. 17, 2015, 11:22 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > autotests/fallbackconfigresourcestest.cpp, line 32 > > > > > > unused? Fixed ;=) Beside that, ok to go in? Should it be :kconfig5/ or :kconfig/ like asked

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/#review86960 --- Ship it! I have no opinion on /kconfig vs /kconfig5. It's

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/#review86939 --- +1 from me as well. For the prefix, I'd prefer to just use

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/ --- (Updated Oct. 13, 2015, 6:20 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks and

Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/ --- Review request for KDE Frameworks and David Faure. Repository: kconfig

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/ --- (Updated Oct. 12, 2015, 12:55 p.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/#review86756 --- in principle, I'm cool with that change, but why do you need

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

> On Oct. 12, 2015, 9:02 p.m., Milian Wolff wrote: > > in principle, I'm cool with that change, but why do you need to ship a > > default file anyways? > > > > KConfig is always used in the form > > > > ...read("value", default) > > > > so the defaults are hardcoded there already. Why

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

> On Oct. 13, 2015, 5:26 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > Is the file test.ini missing from this commit? test.ini is already there, used by an other test. - Christoph --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125598/#review86775 --- Is the file test.ini missing from this commit?

Re: Review Request 125598: Allow KConfig to use resources as fallback config files

> On Oct. 13, 2015, 5:26 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > autotests/fallbackconfigresourcestest.cpp, line 3 > > > > > > This copyright line doesn't seem to be fully correct, unless I wrote > > this code during my