---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/#review9150
---
Ship it!
Good to go!
- Kevin
On 2010-12-06 09:43:30, Aurélien
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/
---
(Updated 2010-12-06 09:43:30.877370)
Review request for kdelibs and Kevin Ot
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/
---
(Updated 2010-12-02 16:51:19.493828)
Review request for kdelibs and Kevin Ot
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/#review9095
---
Proposing a slightly different approach.
trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kdeco
> On 2010-12-01 17:23:11, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Well, if the job is explicitely isAutoDelete() then I'd say it's a bug in
> > the caller to try to delete it in the first place...
>
> Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> I see your point, but on the other hand if the job is not *autodelete*
> and the
> On 2010-12-01 17:23:11, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Well, if the job is explicitely isAutoDelete() then I'd say it's a bug in
> > the caller to try to delete it in the first place...
>
> Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> I see your point, but on the other hand if the job is not *autodelete*
> and the
> On 2010-12-01 17:23:11, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Well, if the job is explicitely isAutoDelete() then I'd say it's a bug in
> > the caller to try to delete it in the first place...
I see your point, but on the other hand if the job is not *autodelete* and the
slot connected to result() deletes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/#review9080
---
Well, if the job is explicitely isAutoDelete() then I'd say it's a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6022/
---
Review request for kdelibs and Kevin Ottens.
Summary
---
If a someone c
