No subject

br>
essential aspects:<br>
- the bookmarks sidepanel<br>
- the focus problem<br>
<br>
About focus, I really cannot decide what is better to do, so I&#39;m waitin=
g for<br>
your suggestions (and your code ;) ).</blockquote><div><br>What&#39;s with =
the focus? <br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-=
left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left=
: 1ex;">


<br>
COPYRIGHT QUESTION<br>
I added a string on every rekonq file: the following<br>
<br>
* Copyright (C) 2009 rekonq team. Please, see AUTHORS file for details *<br=
>
<br>
This means we need to do also two things:<br>
<br>
1. update Authors file (important)<br>
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0here I wrote 3 columns: name, mail, role<br>
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0You just need to add yours and perform a merge =
request.</blockquote><div><br>I&#39;m not sure about the role field, we don=
&#39;t have any roles, so it would be a bit artifitial. <br><br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, =
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">


2. update main file (VERY important)<br>
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0here you need to add... I&#39;m pushing one exa=
mple commented in main.cpp file.<br>
<br>
We can obviously remove the previous line and push all our names also on ev=
ery<br>
file. I did this way just for convenience. Decide all together one way and =
just<br>
do it!!<br>
</blockquote><div><br>IMO this is bad idea. It&#39;s not how things are don=
e. We can have AUTHORS file but leave the copyrights on per file basis.<br>=
<br>I&#39;d like also rise a concern about backporting changes. It doesn&#3=
9;t make sense, because it&#39;s easier to port your changes to our fork th=
an vice versa and you shouldn&#39;t port (especially don&#39;t change) code=
 that someone write and tested because you don&#39;t know why it was writte=
n this way and not another and the possibility of introducing new bug is bi=
g. I&#39;ve run a diff and I see there are awful lot of things you didn&#39=
;d ported and most of this is important stuff related to bugfixes and missi=
ng features. A lots pasts of code were revritten or heavy refactored and th=
ere is no sense in doing it again.<br>

<br>Also IMO you can&#39;t make a release without unittesting (and unit tes=
ts I&#39;ve implemented are not even adopted in mainline yet), to make it r=
ight we need quite a few new tests to make sure the code can be released to=
 anyone (even thou this is a preview).<br>

<br><br></div></div>Regards<br>

--0016e65b41a00a966e04682b76c5--