https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358655
Ralf Habacker <ralf.habac...@freenet.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Depends on| |363891
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Habacker <ralf.habac...@freenet.de> ---
(In reply to Ken Standard from comment #16)
> Why would you need a test case for valid, commonly used, generic GNU C++
> syntax? It seems unnecessary, redundant, and easily recreated.
To be able to verify that this is working in the future too. Someone working on
related parts can simply import given testcases to see if something is broken.
> I see that umbrello is not as Qt aware as I had first believed.
Please file a feature request mentioned in comment 14 or provide a patch. I'm
happy to review :-)
> Also strange, since KDevelop, Qt SDK Framework, and even Mono use project
> descriptor files. This should not have been a surprise.
What is the benefit of having a dedicated project descriptor file ? If you are
missing some features which would only be possible with project descriptors,
feel free to submit a feature request.
> My notes on the comment 8 post here was not, as you describe, "irritation",
> rather fascination that such a simplistic approach is taken to what should
> be intuitive. And, yes, a more descriptive choice would have been clearer.
fixed, see bug 363891
> I think there is also still a question for projects where headers are in
> separate folders from source code and where headers and code may be grouped
> in folders rather than in a flat directory structure with all files
> together. Maybe a "recursive" option on the file selection?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
