From kde-core-devel  Tue Apr 26 07:30:03 2011
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago () kde ! org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:30:03 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Replacement for Qt's Undo Framework
Message-Id: <14991243.6pBbD94tRF () doriath>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=130380306026807
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart1820883.0aejgvVW9V"


--nextPart1820883.0aejgvVW9V
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Tuesday, 26 de April de 2011 07:12:32 Tom Albers wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > On Monday, April 25, 2011 22:12:55 Alexander Potashev wrote:
> > > What do you think about inclusion of KUndo*2 into kdelibs?
> > 
> > we really don't want more duplication of code and effort between Qt
> > and
> > kdelibs, and we certainly don't want forks of Qt code in kdelibs.
> 
> Forks? It does sound like to me as we take the base class from Qt and
> improve it for usage within KDE. We've done that for years and years. Does
> this now imply that that's bad practice and kdelibs is closed for such
> classes?

No, it implies that if it can be done there, it should be done there.

Kdelibs should be for new functionality that doesn't belong in Qt.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
      PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
      E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358

--nextPart1820883.0aejgvVW9V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBNtnR7M/XwBW70U1gRAs+vAJ9L59lMOvDciMg2yxZKW19jE+CJOwCgpraA
LnaQpWf/MJXGL5jxIwncvc8=
=mFqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1820883.0aejgvVW9V--