On Thursday, 17. January 2002 02:00, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> Now I didn't define "reviewal", and it doesn't mean "depends on what the
> release dude says", especially as I don't feel capable of deciding
> myself about some of the questions I get asked (i.e. because I don't know
> that specific code).
>
> Instead I'd like to suggest the following rules / procedure, which also
> worked well in the past:
>
> - posting of a patch with a short description, and if the are "enough"
>   pro the patch and it was tested, then go ahead.
I'm pro this patch as it gives us the capability to preserve binary 
compatibility over the 3.x lifecycle and to have a feature that will bring us 
on the very top of what people are criticising us: missing eyecandy.  That's 
what people want, and that feature makes a *LOT* of things possible for 
artists, whose needs we often don't regard enough.

Ralf

PS: Dirk, I want to tell you a big *thank you* for the great job you're 
doing. I think that needs to be said once in a while.


-- 
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden@kde.org

The K Desktop Environment       The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org              http://www.kdevelop.org