Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On May 4, 2017, 12:40 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Lamarque, you broke the build. > > Lamarque Souza wrote: > Fixed. Thanks for the quick report about the broken build and sorry for > not adding all files to the commit. > > Ben Cooksley wrote: > This patch broke the MSVC build

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On May 4, 2017, 12:40 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Lamarque, you broke the build. > > Lamarque Souza wrote: > Fixed. Thanks for the quick report about the broken build and sorry for > not adding all files to the commit. > > Ben Cooksley wrote: > This patch broke the MSVC build

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On May 4, 2017, 12:40 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Lamarque, you broke the build. > > Lamarque Souza wrote: > Fixed. Thanks for the quick report about the broken build and sorry for > not adding all files to the commit. > > Ben Cooksley wrote: > This patch broke the MSVC build

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On May 4, 2017, 12:40 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Lamarque, you broke the build. > > Lamarque Souza wrote: > Fixed. Thanks for the quick report about the broken build and sorry for > not adding all files to the commit. This patch broke the MSVC build and will be reverted shortly.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On May 4, 2017, 12:40 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Lamarque, you broke the build. Fixed. Thanks for the quick report about the broken build and sorry for not adding all files to the commit. - Lamarque --- This is an

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103182 --- Lamarque, you broke the build. - Albert Astals Cid On

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated May 4, 2017, 12:32 p.m.) Status -- This change has been

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 28, 2017, 1:28 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > Ship It! > > KJ Tsanaktsidis wrote: > Great - thanks for your help and for bearing with my rusty C++! What > happens now? I'm waiting on this patch to land for another patch I submitted > a while ago:

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 28, 2017, 1:28 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > Ship It! > > KJ Tsanaktsidis wrote: > Great - thanks for your help and for bearing with my rusty C++! What > happens now? I'm waiting on this patch to land for another patch I submitted > a while ago:

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 28, 2017, 1:28 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > Ship It! Great - thanks for your help and for bearing with my rusty C++! What happens now? I'm waiting on this patch to land for another patch I submitted a while ago: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130084/ - KJ

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103148 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Lamarque Souza On April 23, 2017,

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 22, 2017, 10:27 a.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > autotests/CMakeLists.txt, line 66 > > > > > > CMake's developers recommend using else() instead of > > else(). The part used to be required with cmake

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 22, 2017, 10:27 a.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > autotests/CMakeLists.txt, line 66 > > > > > > CMake's developers recommend using else() instead of > > else(). The part used to be required with cmake

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 22, 2017, 10:27 a.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > autotests/CMakeLists.txt, line 66 > > > > > > CMake's developers recommend using else() instead of > > else(). The part used to be required with cmake

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated April 23, 2017, 9:56 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103087 --- Fix it, then Ship it! autotests/CMakeLists.txt (line

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 20, 2017, 4:19 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > autotests/fakeUdisks2.h, line 35 > > > > > > It is common practice to pass QString parameters QString as const &: > > > >

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated April 22, 2017, 12:38 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103071 --- autotests/fakeUdisks2.h (line 35)

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 19, 2017, 11:28 a.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > autotests/solidudisks2test.cpp, line 78 > > > > > > I think registering to systemBus only works if you are root or has the > > right permissions in

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated April 20, 2017, 8:49 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103067 --- autotests/fakeUdisks2.h (line 2)

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 18, 2017, 9:45 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > src/solid/devices/backends/udisks2/udisksblock.cpp, line 31 > > > > > > Usually we use uppper case for macros. That would also save some lines > > in

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated April 19, 2017, 11:05 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- (Updated April 19, 2017, 11:03 a.m.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

> On April 18, 2017, 9:45 p.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > src/solid/devices/backends/udisks2/udisksblock.cpp, line 31 > > > > > > Usually we use uppper case for macros. That would also save some lines > > in

Re: Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/#review103063 --- src/solid/devices/backends/udisks2/udisksblock.cpp (line

Review Request 130090: Fix incorrect definition of major(3)/minor(3) macros

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130090/ --- Review request for KDE Frameworks. Repository: solid Description