Closed Bug 380196 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Kill QT graphics code

Categories

(Core :: Widget, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: sciguyryan, Assigned: sciguyryan)

References

Details

Attachments

(3 files, 1 obsolete file)

This is the same idea as bug 326152 but this time with the QT code.
Flags: in-testsuite-
Attached patch Patch v1Splinter Review
Patch v1

This basically kills the QT make stuff (and a few other things) but doesn't include the removed files to ease the reviewer.
Attachment #264378 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #264378 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attached file Removed file list v1
Removed file list v1

This is a list of the files to be removed. I will upload a complete diff patch if this gets a positive review.
Attachment #264379 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #264379 - Flags: review?(roc)
Just wondering why you remove the comment in widget/src/os2/nsDeviceContextSpecOS2.cpp. I agree that the OS/2 widget code needs some cleanup, but this shouldn't happen in a QT-removal bug...
(In reply to comment #3)
> Just wondering why you remove the comment in
> widget/src/os2/nsDeviceContextSpecOS2.cpp. I agree that the OS/2 widget code
> needs some cleanup, but this shouldn't happen in a QT-removal bug...
> 

Its referring to files that no longer exist so its pretty useless keeping them there (xlib and the gtx files were removed in bug 326152 and the QT one will be removed here.

If anyone objects it can be easily removed though :)
Attachment #264378 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #264378 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #264378 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #264378 - Flags: review+
Attachment #264379 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #264379 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #264379 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #264379 - Flags: review+
Attached patch Removed file patch v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Removed file patch v1
Whiteboard: [checkin needed]
Un-bitrotted.
Attachment #264840 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I was just considering to check this in but I noticed that attachment 266463 [details] [diff] [review] and attachment 264840 [details] [diff] [review] are identical, even the file name of the patches?! Well, for the check-in it's not important what the files contain just that they get removed. So did you forget any files in the earlier patch that should be included?
(In reply to comment #7)
> I was just considering to check this in but I noticed that attachment 266463 [details] [diff] [review]
> and attachment 264840 [details] [diff] [review] are identical, even the file name of the patches?! Well,
> for the check-in it's not important what the files contain just that they get
> removed. So did you forget any files in the earlier patch that should be
> included?
> 

No. The file list was the same but the contents of the files were changed but that wouldn't matter if they were CVS removed anyway. I updated in case anyone wanted to use the patch version instead.
That's what I meant, even the content of the files in the patch are identical:
   $ diff -s attachment264840 [details] [diff] [review].cgi attachment266463 [details] [diff] [review].cgi
   Files attachment264840 [details] [diff] [review].cgi and attachment266463 [details] [diff] [review].cgi are identical
Perhaps you by mistake uploaded the older file again?

Anyway, I checked in the removal patch (attachment 264378 [details] [diff] [review]) and cvs removed the files (attachment 264379 [details]). Marking fixed.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [checkin needed]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.