On Tuesday 4. February 2014 23.40.22 David Faure wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2014 11:34:44 Kevin Ottens wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2014 10:17:49 David Faure wrote: > > > Any new module that should be added to this release, compared to TP1? > > > > > > Should I include attica? > > > > Since this question keeps popping up, let's integrate it. It should also > > be > > added to the list: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/List > > Yes, but see what I wrote in the "Tier status of attica & kwallet" thread: > there's some buildsystem work to be done for attica to be a proper framework > (making it use ECM, so it can integrate better with the other frameworks > and be fully consistent with them, including installing camelcase > forwarding headers etc.), which also means moving the qt4 support into a > separate branch first. > Which brings us to the next topic: who as maintainer should approve this. > > > Also, since no one stepped up to say if it should be in or out, I'd say it > > should be with no declared maintainer until someone claims it. > > I was under the impression that it had a maintainer, although right now I > can't remember if that was Jeremy Whiting or Frederik Gladhorn or someone > else. Cc'ing them. Guys, any input? > > (Note that overall this would lower the future maintainance work on attica's > buildsystem, since it will just be maintained together with the other > frameworks, by anyone who makes changes to ECM or across all frameworks.)
I won't realistically get around to make any improvements and I have no idea about ECM, so I'd be very happy if someone could take over these tasks. I had the impression that Laszlo worked with attica for a while, but I don't know if he's available for any of this porting work. >From my point of view, please just go ahead and change it as you think is sensible. Greetings, Frederik _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
