Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-06 Thread Laszlo Papp
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: [resent with Frederik's correct email address] On Thursday 06 February 2014 00:53:53 Frederik Gladhorn wrote: Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. Some issues left: - who do we write down as maintainer for attica? - can I

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-06 Thread Kevin Ottens
On Thursday 06 February 2014 07:23:30 Kevin Ottens wrote: On Thursday 06 February 2014 01:15:15 David Faure wrote: Some issues left: - who do we write down as maintainer for attica? Good question, let's mark it TBD until someone dares to step up for it. That said, obviously, if there's

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-06 Thread Kevin Ottens
On Thursday 06 February 2014 07:23:30 Kevin Ottens wrote: On Thursday 06 February 2014 01:15:15 David Faure wrote: Some issues left: - who do we write down as maintainer for attica? Good question, let's mark it TBD until someone dares to step up for it. That said, obviously, if there's

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread Jeremy Whiting
I can do the changes if needed. It just needs the changes here: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Porting_Notes under Build System ? I believe attica currently builds with both qt4 or qt5 based on cmake options (if QT4_BUILD is set it builds with qt4). Is the qt4 branch supposed to not use ECM

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread frederik
On Tuesday 4. February 2014 23.40.22 David Faure wrote: On Monday 03 February 2014 11:34:44 Kevin Ottens wrote: On Monday 03 February 2014 10:17:49 David Faure wrote: Any new module that should be added to this release, compared to TP1? Should I include attica? Since this question

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread Kevin Ottens
On Wednesday 05 February 2014 18:39:51 David Faure wrote: On Wednesday 05 February 2014 09:55:08 Jeremy Whiting wrote: I can do the changes if needed. It just needs the changes here: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Porting_Notes under Build System ? No, it should follow all the

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread David Faure
Frederik wrote: From my point of view, please just go ahead and change it as you think is sensible. OK, thanks for the green lights, I went ahead: * Qt4 support for attica is now in the qt4 branch * Attica master is now qt5 only, and requires ECM. * It gained all the bells and whistles of

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread Frederik Gladhorn
On Thursday 6. February 2014 00.29.45 David Faure wrote: Frederik wrote: From my point of view, please just go ahead and change it as you think is sensible. OK, thanks for the green lights, I went ahead: * Qt4 support for attica is now in the qt4 branch * Attica master is now qt5

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread David Faure
On Thursday 06 February 2014 00:53:53 Frederik Gladhorn wrote: On Thursday 6. February 2014 00.29.45 David Faure wrote: Frederik wrote: From my point of view, please just go ahead and change it as you think is sensible. OK, thanks for the green lights, I went ahead: * Qt4

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-05 Thread David Faure
[resent with Frederik's correct email address] On Thursday 06 February 2014 00:53:53 Frederik Gladhorn wrote: Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. Some issues left: - who do we write down as maintainer for attica? - can I run astyle on the code to make it consistent with all other frameworks?

Re: kf5 alpha 1 : attica?

2014-02-04 Thread David Faure
On Monday 03 February 2014 11:34:44 Kevin Ottens wrote: On Monday 03 February 2014 10:17:49 David Faure wrote: Any new module that should be added to this release, compared to TP1? Should I include attica? Since this question keeps popping up, let's integrate it. It should also be