On Monday 16 March 2009 17:42:33 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> > On Monday 16 March 2009, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > > There's no way in hell that any person who doesn't know that there used
> > > to be a starting point for a table shape to guess it and find it in
> > > svn.
> >
> > Yet I agree with Thomas that having not functional, unmaintained code
> > sitting in koffice isn't a very good idea. But I also agree with you that
> > it makes the abandonned code more difficult to find.
> >
> > Would it be acceptable by everyone to have such removed code tagged in
> > unmaintained [1] ? (probably in a koffice section) And have it documented
> > in a wiki ?
>
> That sounds like an excellent compromise to me. (In this case, had Thomas
> asked me be about removing the table shape, I'd probably have agreed,
> since, as he explained to me in a later mail, and as I had been investiging
> just last week, we'll probably be taking the Qt table stuff as a starting
> point instead.)

I haven't read the rest of the thread in kde-commits yet so I may have missed 
something, but I also think this is a good compromise.

	-Inge

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel