khtml changes and the webarchiver plugin

Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2008 schrieb Matthias Grimrath:
I intend to commit only on the 3.5 branch. The 4.0 version is not
ready yet :-)
>
Any objections?

KDE 3.5 is closed for feature commits, so I fear your proposal is to be
rejected. But an improved webarchiver plugin is wholeheartedly welcome on the
KDE 4 branch. So don't let yourself be discouraged and continue work on a
fully functional, advanced webarchiver plugin for KDE 4.2.

mfg
Leo

Freitag 09 Mai 2008, Leo Savernik wrote:
KDE 3.5 is closed for feature commits, so I fear your proposal is
to be rejected.

Well, I would like to argue for an exception here. I have received
almost no bug reports and no reports of crashes. I think I can claim
it is at least as stable as the old webarchiver.

KDE 3.5 will be a around for few years still. The old webarchiver has
problems with CSS and frames that a lot webpages use. For users of
KDE 3.5 this means in many cases the original webarchiver is simply
useless.

So what I am saying is there is little to lose and much to gain even
on the stable 3.5 branch.

Who do I have to convince that it is good enough for 3.5?

But an improved webarchiver plugin is
wholeheartedly welcome on the KDE 4 branch. So don't let yourself
be discouraged and continue work on a fully functional, advanced
webarchiver plugin for KDE 4.2.

Ack.


Matthias Grimrath

Matthias Grimrath wrote, on Tuesday 2008 May 13:
KDE 3.5 will be a around for few years still. The old webarchiver has
problems with CSS and frames that a lot webpages use. For users of
KDE 3.5 this means in many cases the original webarchiver is simply
useless.
>
So what I am saying is there is little to lose and much to gain even
on the stable 3.5 branch.
>
Who do I have to convince that it is good enough for 3.5?

A complaint we get from packagers is that they cannot upgrade to our newer
patch releases on their stable releases is that we cheat by adding features
on our patchlevel releases. This means that they must make their own patches
to our older versions for bug and security fixes (as opposed to just taking a
newer patch level release).

Charles

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


rlRCEXgfrE7l0hvl0DJh3WA=
=wRsx
PGP SIGNATURE

A complaint we get from packagers is that they cannot upgrade to our newer
patch releases on their stable releases is that we cheat by adding features
on our patchlevel releases. This means that they must make their own patches
to our older versions for bug and security fixes (as opposed to just taking a
newer patch level release).

This has been true for our 3.5 series anyway

And I think it would be nice to hear of bugs and secuity fixes from them.

Luciano

>
Charles
>