Review Request: fix for some typos

[Dario Freddi]

> 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.
> 
> Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
>     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.

Indeed. The fact I didn't comment the change is not a good excuse for reverting it without asking. However, since the action can actually be used outside the scope of the button by the application and in general the action is never "parented" to the button itself, the application should track it and delete it accordingly. Moreover, it's possible an application initializes a KAction on the stack, causing quite a decent amount of troubles when deleting it from the button. In general, the UI component should never be responsible for its deletion. In frameworks this will be more obvious as actions will be implicitly shared objects.

So please revert your commit.


- Dario


-----------------------------------------------------------
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
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20120626/91d80fba/attachment.htm>