- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Jan 11 2019
Closed by Scott :)
Jan 10 2019
Now it should be perfectly fine to push! :)
Jan 9 2019
Just a comment
Jan 8 2019
I have tested your patch and found the following issues:
The patch seem to cause no regressions in LTR mode, so it is safe to push it! :)
In D17853#388885, @pino wrote:Just noticed this... note that ECM already provides it: https://api.kde.org/ecm/module/ECMEnableSanitizers.html
There is still some weird problem with assigning these extra buttons to the shortcuts. Please see the attached video:
Jan 7 2019
I guess it just wasn't finished and worked only in few cases... and caused regressions in other cases
Dec 29 2018
Thank you for sharing the screenshots! It looks like the problem is really serious. I would say that alignment is almost "not-a-problem" in comparison to the main part of the patch :)
I still have an assert when trying to change the values :(
Dec 28 2018
In D17695#382476, @Beuc wrote:By the way this patch was intended to the 4.1 branch, you'll want to replicate it there.
In D17708#382477, @Beuc wrote:By the way this patch was intended to the 4.1 branch, you'll want to replicate it there.
There are two issues with the current version of the patch:
It looks like your option gets uninitialized somehow, so it tries to pass random numbers to the processing code. Therefore causing it to crash :(
In D16234#382109, @mscaliskan wrote:I am sorry, I could not continue to edit this revision.
In D6619#382920, @razvanr wrote:I've been thinking about this lately and I think we can implement this another way that wouldn't lower the performance. The problem with this implementation is that the pattern gets rotated for each dab placement. So there's two ways I can think of improving this, either apply the rotation and store it somewhere else outside of the paint operation or rotate it once at the beginning of the paint stroke and cache it somehow.
Dec 26 2018
Dec 25 2018
Could you please make a screenshot and a bit of explanation of what this patch is expected to do? I tried to add RTL text to the layer name and it seem to be rendered kind of fine with and without your patch. The only problem I have found is the alignment of the text (it is left-aligned), but I'm not sure it is what you are trying to solve.
The patch looks fine! Now you should add one more option for the preview granularity, but that is for the next patch :)
The patch has been pushed in a879aa5107955ef1ee260ec5468a42b5965eb59d
The patch has been pushed in 24975f889a7a219d7dd9729d03e34048669dae73
The patch has been committed in 5d82f8e3cf88e402ab2a6991826fc9847e9947c8
The patch has been pushed in 5311b66754f2651cc16a96f2cba1789a1f0b7165
As far as I can tell, the patch has been committed in a8ca98974df7c96e2ff564797f2e3aa534d194f0, so let's close it :)
Since the patch was reverted and breaks something, I'm marking it as Needs Changes
The patch looks good codewise. I especially like the boost's macros for doing all the boilerplate.
The patch looks basically correct, except that the option is related to cage transform only, so it is logical to put it into the "cage" page, but not to the free transform page. Right now it looks very confusing :)
Thank you for the patch, I'll test it now!
I will mark the patch as "needs changes", otherwise its status is confusing...