----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119447/#review63024 -----------------------------------------------------------
+1, makes sense to me, I don't see a drawback to further checking :) - Aleix Pol Gonzalez On July 24, 2014, 12:10 a.m., Luigi Toscano wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119447/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 24, 2014, 12:10 a.m.) > > > Review request for Documentation, KDE Frameworks and kdelibs. > > > Repository: kdelibs > > > Description > ------- > > For some historical reasons, both results were not checked. > On one side, a parsing error could lead to a failure in one of the subsequent > call (doc is NULL), but a validation error could pass unnoticed if not by > checking the logs (hint: it happened recently with a libxml2 regression). > > I propose this change for KDE/4.14 too, and it will be forward-ported to > KDocTools/KF5. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kdoctools/xslt.cpp 4d64de4 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119447/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Compilation of kdelibs and few modules with documentation. > > > Thanks, > > Luigi Toscano > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel