On 4.8.2013 12:38, David Graeff wrote: > Hi Sam, Yann, all, > > I prepared a rebased V2 of the patchset. As far as I get the consensus is to replace the existing > Qtk and Qt flavours because there exist a fallback (n/mconf) for users that do not have the never libs available. > > I reorganized the commits and used "-D -M" flags this time for a better review. > There are some tool generated files like gconfig/gconf.ui and qconfig/mainwindow.ui which surely > break the 80-column readability rule but are best viewed in their respective editor (gtk: glade, > qt: designer) anyway. > > The Qt flavour is Qt5 compatible but I did not changed the build system to actually use Qt5. > I've tested the Qt flavour with Qt 4.8.4, the Gtk flavour with Gtk 3.6.4. > > I have another question regarding the patch procedure: I've seen some mails here only requesting for > pull requests. Is it common to send pull requests instead of a set of patches? > > Regards, > David > > David Graeff (4): > KConf: Move flavours into their own subdirectories. > KConf: Update/Port Gtk flavour to use Gtk3 > KConf: Qt interface port to Qt4/Qt5, removed Qt3 Support > KConf: images.c for gtk/qt gui flavour reoganized I only received 1/4 and 4/4 through the mailing list. Perhaps vger rejected the other two patches for size reasons? I know that Yann told to to send full copies of patches instead of pull request, but could you please create a repository on some git hosting site and publish the patches there _in addition to_ sending them by mail? Thanks, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
