On Friday 07 of March 2008, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Lubos Lunak schrieb:
> >  As much as I grumble about and generally hate qt-bugs@, I disagree. If
> > QDir::isAbsolutePath() path has a performance problem, fix it, send the
> > patch to TT and put it to qt-copy/patches. That's one of the reasons it's
> > there.
>
> But - now the main question - is anyone from the trolltech devs here who
> can ensure that such a patch would be accepted ?
>
> If yes, then making a related patch and sending to TT will be the best
> option.
>
> If not, a kdelibs located implementation will be the next best option,
> maybe replaced later by a qt based implementation.

 No. The next best option is still patching Qt, even if TT doesn't give a damn 
about the patch. That's their problem, not ours, and there's no point in 
complicating our lives by adding a duplicate function in kdelibs. 
Qt-copy/patches is not only for patches TT like, it's also for patches they 
don't like. Why do you think Qt3-based qt-copy patches has so many so old 
patches?

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz