Replacement for Qt's Undo Framework
Bèrto ëd Sèra
berto.d.sera at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 08:29:36 BST 2011
with all the due respect, "improve" should mean the Qt version does the job,
but you have a more specific target to meet, which is alien to Qt. I'm not
aware of Qt localization having defined Russian "off target", so I'd say an
upstream bug is an upstream bug. That's unless Qt says they have no interest
On 26 April 2011 10:12, Tom Albers <toma at kde.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Monday, April 25, 2011 22:12:55 Alexander Potashev wrote:
> > > What do you think about inclusion of KUndo*2 into kdelibs?
> > we really don't want more duplication of code and effort between Qt
> > and
> > kdelibs, and we certainly don't want forks of Qt code in kdelibs.
> Forks? It does sound like to me as we take the base class from Qt and
> improve it for usage within KDE. We've done that for years and years. Does
> this now imply that that's bad practice and kdelibs is closed for such
> Tom Albers
> KDE Sysadmin
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened
room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the kde-core-devel