KBufferedIO fix for branch?

Thiago Macieira thiagom at wanadoo.fr
Mon Dec 16 17:05:31 GMT 2002

Malte Starostik wrote:
>are there any objections against backporting
>f?r1=1.7&r2=1.8&f=h to the branch? About the second part: it seems no one
> ever used used a write buffered KExtendedSocket before, at least with more
> than one writeBlock() call before a flush(); the first part seems right to
> me, but did I miss something?

Actually, I had problems with bufferes getting deleted when they shouldn't 
have. I thought I had corrected that problem... Yes, there it is. I did 
correct it, but it seems I forgot to commit the fix! Shame on me!

It's ok to commit, by me. It's a bugfix and your bugfix is exactly like mine 
(except mine uses first() instead of current()). Unless someone objects, I 
think you should go ahead.

  Thiago Macieira - UFOT Registry number: 1001
 thiagom at mail.com
   ICQ UIN: 1967141  PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358
     Registered Linux user #65028
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20021216/a951d4b2/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list