Review Request 128988: Drop obsolete version check

[David Faure]

> On Sept. 22, 2016, 7:12 p.m., David Faure wrote:
> > src/kcrash.cpp, line 62
> > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128988/diff/1/?file=477287#file477287line62>
> >
> >     While you're here, this should now be QtInfoMsg, see 413eb26 in ECM (or review 128232).
> 
> Heiko Becker wrote:
>     I'd rather put that in a separate commit.
>     Also, I've seen that in quite a number of other frameworks. Should I mail kde-frameworks one time instead of posting another round of review requests?

Agreed about separate commit. You can push the change to QtInfoMsg to all frameworks without another round of RR indeed. The difference is academic currently, we're not using qInfo() much, if at all. But I like the idea of being able to. And of making things consistent in terms of the default category level ;) Thanks!


- David


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128988/#review99438
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 21, 2016, 5:11 p.m., Heiko Becker wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128988/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 21, 2016, 5:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and David Faure.
> 
> 
> Repository: kcrash
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Frameworks already require Qt 5.5.0.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/kcrash.cpp b8c6477a70291ca9c1f0efef3bba061b6af247b0 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128988/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Heiko Becker
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20160922/1c2bbbc4/attachment-0001.html>