From kde-core-devel Sat Jun 23 18:18:28 2012 From: "Lamarque Vieira Souza" Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:18:28 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: Review Request: fix for some typos Message-Id: <20120623181828.31551.208 () vidsolbach ! de> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134047576304645 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============7587226205345628202==" --===============7587226205345628202== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On June 16, 2012, 4:15 p.m., Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > > kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp, line 408 > > > > > > Well, commit 3d789c9dcda0179aac40e2bcf58df06cccf84ed5 is the one th= at commented this line, but Dario did not give any reason why not delete th= e action. I think you should have asked Dario why he did this change in the first pla= ce, also you should not commit a patch without a "ship it" from another dev= eloper. - Lamarque Vieira ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105278/#review14799 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 16, 2012, 3:37 p.m., Jaime Torres Amate wrote: > = > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105278/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > = > (Updated June 16, 2012, 3:37 p.m.) > = > = > Review request for kdelibs. > = > = > Description > ------- > = > 1. Do not want to check m_startDate.isValid() twice and m_endDate.isValid= () none. > 2. why do not want to delete d->authAction if it is nulled after that. > 3. Is really the code after the break unwanted code? > 4. if ok is not initialized, sometimes while(ok) could do nothing. > = > = > Diffs > ----- > = > kdecore/date/kcalendarera.cpp 0a21e37 = > kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp 309cf82 = > kio/kfile/kpropertiesdialog.cpp feb0c9e = > sonnet/unicode/parseucd/parseucd.cpp 1c9b90e = > = > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105278/diff/ > = > = > Testing > ------- > = > 6 months or more with it locally. > = > = > Thanks, > = > Jaime Torres Amate > = > --===============7587226205345628202== Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.revie= wboard.kde.org/r/105278/

On June 16th, 2012, 4:15 p.m., Lamarque Vie= ira Souza wrote:

= = =

kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp (Diff revision 1)
void KAction::setAuthAction(KAuth::Action *action)
408	= //delete d->authAction;	408	delete d->authAct= ion;

Well, com=
mit 3d789c9dcda0179aac40e2bcf58df06cccf84ed5 is the one that commented this=
 line, but Dario did not give any reason why not delete the action.

I think you should have asked Dario why he did this change in the fi=
rst place, also you should not commit a patch without a "ship it"=
 from another developer.

- Lamarque Vieira

On June 16th, 2012, 3:37 p.m., Jaime Torres Amate wrote:

Review request for kdelibs.

By Jaime Torres Amate.

Updated June 16, 2012, 3:37 p.m.

Descripti= on

1. Do not want to check m_startDate.isValid() twice and m_en=
dDate.isValid() none.
2. why do not want to delete d->authAction if it is nulled after that.
3. Is really the code after the break unwanted code?
4. if ok is not initialized, sometimes while(ok) could do nothing.

Testing <= /h1>

6 months or more with it locally.

Diffs=

kdecore/date/kcalendarera.cpp (0a21e37)
kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp (309cf82)=
kio/kfile/kpropertiesdialog.cpp (feb0c9e)<= /span>
sonnet/unicode/parseucd/parseucd.cpp (1c9b= 90e)

--===============7587226205345628202==--