From kde-core-devel Tue Mar 11 09:52:14 2008 From: David Faure Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:52:14 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: 'lightweight' QDir::isAbsolutePath replacement ? Message-Id: <200803111052.14897.faure () kde ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=120522918031133 On Saturday 08 March 2008, Thiago Macieira wrote: > David Faure wrote: > >>  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? > > > >API additions are a big no-no though. > > We're talking about making an already-existing static function a lot > faster. I think it qualifies. Ralf said "The patch is appended. It adds static bool QFileInfo::isAbsolute(const QString &path); static bool QFileInfo::isRelative(const QString &path); [...]" That's new API, which can't go into qt-copy only if TT doesn't want it, otherwise KDE will never compile with official versions of Qt, that's what I meant. But apparently you guys at TT are okay with this patch so this isn't a problem, I was only replying to "qt-copy/patches is also for patches TT doesn't like": not if they add API. -- David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).