sitter added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> dfaure wrote in servicerunnertest.cpp:59
> BTW if this is necessary then there's a bug in ksycoca :-)
>
> You can leave it (it helps getting the debug output from ksycoca in the right
> method) but if it fails without this line, then please tell
dfaure added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> servicerunnertest.cpp:59
> +
> +KSycoca::self()->ensureCacheValid();
> +}
BTW if this is necessary then there's a bug in ksycoca :-)
You can leave it (it helps getting the debug output from ksycoca in the right
method) but if it fails
dfaure added a comment.
I would say yes, it's worth using LGPL v2+ or v2+v3 or v2+v3+e.V., whichever
you prefer, for any new code. Otherwise it's even more work the day we want to
relicense away from v2 only (I know because I've been trying to do that for
some code for a very long time, and
sitter added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> dfaure wrote in servicerunnertest.cpp:5
> Is LGPL-v2-only on purpose here?
Not particularly. It's the same as the existing source file though, to have the
same license restrictions apply to both. Is it worth changing it to gpgl2+kdev
considering
