2012/6/23 Lamarque Vieira Souza
<lamarque@kde.org>
On June 16th, 2012, 4:15 p.m., Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
|
kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp
(Diff revision 1)
|
void KAction::setAuthAction(KAuth::Action *action) |
| 408 |
//delete d->authAction; |
408 |
delete d->authAction; |
Well, commit 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 first place, also you should not commit a patch without a "ship it" from another developer.
Hi, I'm sorry.
Saturday was, for me, one of those days where one should stay in bed. Almost everything I did on Saturday was wrong :-(. Yesterday I was in quarantine, I did not touch any computer at all.
I've been using reviewboard in the right way since I did a wrong file svn commit long time ago, except:
* last saturday, sigh
* trivial commits of prefix ++ vs postfix ++
- 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.
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.
|
Testing
6 months or more with it locally.
|
Diffs
- kdecore/date/kcalendarera.cpp (0a21e37)
- kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp (309cf82)
- kio/kfile/kpropertiesdialog.cpp (feb0c9e)
- sonnet/unicode/parseucd/parseucd.cpp (1c9b90e)
View Diff
|