> On Oct. 18, 2014, 12:01 p.m., David Faure wrote:
> > you say it's a port, but it reads like new code (no diff). Is that because 
> > it moved to another module? Makes reviewing a bit harder (though not 
> > impossible).

> Is that because it moved to another module?

I copy-pasted the code to kio-extras.

> Makes reviewing a bit harder (though not impossible).

Ok sorry for that, should I open a review request for kde-baseapps - so that 
you can see the diff?


- Emmanuel


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120460/#review68652
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 13, 2014, 3:35 p.m., Emmanuel Pescosta wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120460/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 13, 2014, 3:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for kde-workspace and David Faure.
> 
> 
> Repository: kio-extras
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The filenamesearch ioslave lists all files/folders which match with the given 
> search query.
> 
> Made some small adjustments:
> * Ported the ioslave to Qt5/KF5
> * Got rid of cleanup() and member variables
> * Use lambda function validators instead of some weird if + assert things in 
> searchDirectory/contentContainsPattern
> * Immediately return when the search string is empty
>  
> https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/applications/kde-baseapps/repository/revisions/frameworks/show/dolphin/src/search
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   filenamesearch/kio_filenamesearch.h PRE-CREATION 
>   filenamesearch/kio_filenamesearch.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   CMakeLists.txt 2036392 
>   filenamesearch/CMakeLists.txt PRE-CREATION 
>   filenamesearch/filenamesearch.protocol PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120460/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compiles.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Emmanuel Pescosta
> 
>

Reply via email to