KLocale plans (Re: KF5 Unit test results)

[David Faure]

On Sunday 16 September 2012 19:22:26 Chusslove Illich wrote:
> > [: David Faure :]
> > Anyhow, I recommend splitting "in place" (in kdecore), first, to have
> > commits that do the splitting, separated from the commits that do the
> > moving. I can even do the moving once you've done the API splitting :-)
> 
> Well that's totally great. I was thinking of asking about doing it this way
> exactly, but thought it would be disrespective of your time :)

Hi Chusslove,

any progress? :-)

I solved the kservice issue temporarily (with a few big nasty ifdefs), but I'm 
very soon going to hit the same issue with KIO, which I'd like to split out, 
because KIO has a strong dependency on i18n -- I'm not porting that to tr(), 
there's a lot of plural forms in kio/global.cpp for instance. I think the plan 
was "tr() for frameworks with very few and simple translations, i18n for heavy 
i18n usage", and KIO fits into the second category, it seems.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5