AW: [RFC] KConfig merge

[Thomas Braxton]

On 10/3/07, Maksim Orlovich <mo85 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Hello
> > We tried very hard, but we couldn't get this ready for today.
> > The main problem is, that the header structure of the config classes is
> > now
> > much clearer, which (they now only the things in the really nead, which
> is
> > much less hen before)
>
> Is there any reason other than pedantism to not make them backwards
> compatible, and avoid porting? We're supposed to be stabilizing here.
>
>
> if you call not including headers you don't need pedantism, then no.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20071003/623abdaa/attachment.htm>