On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Piotr Galiszewski <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/8/17 Daniel Burrows <[email protected]>: >>> + >>> + /** \brief Method called after reloading package cache. */ >>> + void handle_cache_reloaded(); >>> + >>> + /** \brief Method called after closing package cache. */ >>> + void handle_cache_closed(); >>> + >>> + public: >>> + /** \brief Create a new package_model for the default >>> package_pool. */ >>> + explicit packages_model_impl(QObject *parent = 0); >>> + >>> + /** \brief Create a new package_model for the given package_pool. >>> */ >>> + explicit packages_model_impl(package_pool *pkg_pool, QObject >>> *parent = 0); >> >> This should also be exposed in the header (forward-declare >> package_pool). >> > > I am not sure what did you mean? I should create second > create_packages_model method with package_pool as parameter?
Yeah. The second constructor doesn't do much good if no-one on the outside can invoke it. ;-) Add a note that the first one is just a convenience for the second one. I might kill the other constructor, actually, and get the package_pool pointer in the create_() function. Either way is fine, though. > I have one question about rebasing this patches. Before doing this I > have to create required code snippets for google. We will be able to > submit them since 30th and new code is not allowed to be there. I am > not quite sure what will be the best option for this? Copy of files, > one big patch or patch for each commit? I need to make a decision and > any advice is much appreciated ;) Ummmmmm, I don't know anything about this requirement. Do you have a link I could read? Daniel _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
