Re: koffice/kplato

On Tirsdag 22 november 2005 17:56, Raphael Langerhorst wrote:
(snip)
> Now that we have the changes in, and you know my reasoning for
> this, should we keep it the way it is now? Are there any objections
> (on which you insist) from your point of view?
No, not really.
>
> I sure see the filename = classname rule is a valid argument to
> keep (revert to) the prefix - as filenames will (in any case) keep
> their prefix. But then, there is only the prefix difference between
> filename and class, right?
This was why I (slowly) topled over to maybe keeping it, but I'm not a 
stickler for these types of things...
>
> I'm sorry Dag, that you currently have sth in the pipeline based on
> old classnames.
No problem, I'll just doctor the diff files, I just wanted to settle 
this as reverting now is easier than undoing the change later.
>
> Regards,

-- 
Mvh,
Dag Andersen