17 Aug
2011
17 Aug
'11
4:06 a.m.
On Wednesday 17 August 2011 07:53:17 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Second: I was merely thinking out loud. With trolls
on this list
apparently that is a bad idea; I will save my ideas for the meeting, where
things have been more civil.
Third: I do not need to break the existing KDE3.5.10 plugin, but over time
it WILL break itself. Good luck keeping it running when Qt3.3.8b won't
even build anymore.
Instead of accusing me of trolling here you better should recalll that we use your
patched version of Qt3. They are API-wise backward compatible and there is
actually no need for rewriting anything that depends on purely Qt3.
Fourth: For now we are keeping the upstream plugin.
My entire train of
thought here has been an attempt to be PROACTIVE instead of RETROACTIVE in
fixing major functionality regressions.
Having no part in the development
of the upstream LibreOffice plugin is NOT a good thing, and has the
potential to cause a MAJOR USER-VISIBLE regression if upstream dumps it or
breaks it without our knowleged.
OK, if you are talking just about obtaining accounts in their development system
"de bene esse".
I will say no more on this topic for now.