Review Request: [KIO] AccessManager: the missing piece to go with 1bf9737.

[Pierre Rossi]

> On July 5, 2011, 9:47 p.m., Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > Unnecessary because a job is NOT created in either of those case and as such the state of that flag is of no consequence.

ok, then if the parent is not necessary either, we should probably drop it too. I just didn't like the fact that a pointer was given for a bool.


- Pierre


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101859/#review4415
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 5, 2011, 8:32 p.m., Pierre Rossi wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101859/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 5, 2011, 8:32 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for kdelibs and Dawit Alemayehu.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Bonus question: should this go in 4.7 or master ?
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   kio/kio/accessmanager.cpp ef9b8ef 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101859/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pierre
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20110705/0b3e046d/attachment.htm>