Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello,
|
| I have committed the updated attached patch in the "younes" branch in
| case someone would like to continue the clean up work.
I have merged parts of this. I will continue the merging Wednesday
evening.
I am doing it piece by piece to
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Yes. Of course your decision is respected, but I hope you reconsider
> > it again.
>
> everybody knows that retiring on friday doesn't count...
True. Except for cyclists.
Jürgen
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Yes. Of course your decision is respected, but I hope you reconsider
it again.
everybody knows that retiring on friday doesn't count...
Georg Baum wrote:
> That is sad to read. Although I did not always agree with your changes I
> think we all owe you a big THANK YOU for everything you have done for
> LyX. After all, it was a big amount of work, and the results are
> impressive.
I second that. The work you have done and also your
Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2006 12:07 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> I strongly disagree. I have seen many patches in the list that were much
> bigger than this one and didn't provoke the reaction my patches always
> provoke from you.
I noticed that too, and I can understand that that is frustrating. On
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Hello,
I have committed the updated attached patch in the "younes" branch in
case someone would like to continue the clean up work.
i hope that this is not the last thing we see of you
Congratulation, LyX! You lost another ambitious developer
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Hello,
I have committed the updated attached patch in the "younes" branch in
case someone would like to continue the clean up work.
Cheers,
Abdel.
i hope that this is not the last thing we see of you
Hello,
I have committed the updated attached patch in the "younes" branch in
case someone would like to continue the clean up work.
Cheers,
Abdel.
Index: src/BufferView.C
===
--- src/BufferView.C(revision 14280)
+++ src/Buffer
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > We cannot continue to have this battle every time you create a new
| > patch.
|
| Right, trusting me a tiny more bit would help.
It is not about trust. It is about not doing too many changes at the
same time.
Actual
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > We cannot continue to have this battle every time you create a new
| > patch.
|
| Right, trusting me a tiny more bit would help.
It is not about trust. It is about not doing too many changes at the
same time.
Actually, I do trust you, your code
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | * frontends/Timeout:
| > |- emit() renamed to emitSignal() to avoid compiler confusion with Qt
| > | emit() function (change prop
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Because this change will have to be done on all qt code and the
> resulting patch will be bigger than this one. IMO, those changes are
> really minimal, nothing to fuss about.
Well, you see that they create fuss, so why not solve the problem once and
forever?
Nobody wou
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
No, there is a boost macro compatibility flag that I plan to use in the
future for that. This flag will need a change of the "emit", "signals"
and "slot" macros to "Q_EMIT", "Q_SIGNALS" and "Q_SLOT" or something
like that. In the mean time, please acce
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | * frontends/Timeout:
| > |- emit() renamed to emitSignal() to avoid compiler confusion with Qt
| > | emit() function (change propagated to all frontend).
| >
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> No, there is a boost macro compatibility flag that I plan to use in the
> future for that. This flag will need a change of the "emit", "signals"
> and "slot" macros to "Q_EMIT", "Q_SIGNALS" and "Q_SLOT" or something
> like that. In the mean time, please accept my timeout
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| * frontends/Timeout:
|- emit() renamed to emitSignal() to avoid compiler confusion with Qt
| emit() function (change propagated to all frontend).
This I do not like.
I agree on the principle but, come on, we d
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| * frontends/Timeout:
|- emit() renamed to emitSignal() to avoid compiler confusion with Qt
| emit() function (change propagated to all frontend).
This I do not like.
Qt deserves a lot of flak for pushing such common names into
the global n
17 matches
Mail list logo