> On June 16, 2012, 4:15 p.m., Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > > kdeui/actions/kaction.cpp, line 408 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105278/diff/1/?file=68027#file68027line408> > > > > 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. - 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 > >