Fwd: Requesting freeze exception for JtG

[Sebastian Kügler]

On Thursday, November 24, 2011 15:04:32 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Sebastian Kügler <sebas at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 00:07:55 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> >> I'm a Debian developer myself and part of the Qt-KDE packaging team. I
> >> know the implications of code in packaging. This patch has absolutely
> >> zero implications.
> > 
> > He was referring to "make it a standalone library and add it as
> > dependency".
> I'll repeat my question: how does that change anything? We'd be making
> the implementation of this more convoluted just for the sake of
> working around a non-technical problem. I can't see the point.

I think it's a nonsensical idea for something like this, way overkill. Was 
just explaining how I understood it.

> > Note that even this case should not change anything WRT packaging, since
> > we
> > promised to re-assemble tarballs for packagers.
> > 
> > I personally don't mind a non-intrusive patch (one that just changes the
> > text in there, for example), if the translation and docs team is OK with
> > that. This does not constitute a new feature to me.
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand. What text do you want to change and
> where is "in there"?

Well, the translated text.

> > I'd suggest dropping everything in this patch that isn't strictly
> > necessary.
> Could you point me to the bits that you think aren't strictly
> necessary? Because I don't see any. But maybe it's my not
> understanding what Allen and you mean.

I think the KAction parts aren't really needed, but *you* said the patch would 
be intrusive, I'm tagging along. :)
-- 
sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20111125/6b9581fd/attachment.html>