Review Request 128589: Take over maintainership; remove framework deprecation flags

[Aleix Pol Gonzalez]

> On Aug. 3, 2016, 3:32 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
> > I think that changing maintainership is fine, I'm not convinced that the work done so far is enough to consider it up to speed.
> 
> David Faure wrote:
>     Can you give more details about what you see as missing before the framework can be non-deprecated?

My fear is that it's a framework that requires a mainainer that is quite on top. Back in the days when Sebastian Sauer was active, small details had to be considered all over the place. I'm a bit afraid that we might need more than a "seems to work". That said, it's probably the same case for other frameworks already...


- Aleix


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/#review98030
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 3, 2016, 1:55 a.m., Alexander Potashev wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 3, 2016, 1:55 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks.
> 
> 
> Repository: kross
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Take over maintainership; remove framework deprecation flags
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   metainfo.yaml 28937c96ba71aecd81d3565d071fe6560ef2e68e 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128589/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Potashev
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20160805/cc151b26/attachment.html>