On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/diff/5/?file=55320#file55320line352
!QUrl::isLocalFile()?
Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0 and we still
On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/diff/5/?file=55320#file55320line352
!QUrl::isLocalFile()?
Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0 and we still
On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Any more questions about this patch? Can I push it?
- Lamarque Vieira
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review12037
---
service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp
On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/diff/5/?file=55320#file55320line352
!QUrl::isLocalFile()?
isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0 and we still use Qt 4.7.4 in Meego
image.
-
On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/diff/5/?file=55320#file55320line352
!QUrl::isLocalFile()?
Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0 and we still
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review11942
---
I don't mind this approach - some things need to be related to
Why don't you just let the user decide what he wants to do ... let him
choose between move to private activity and copy to private activity.
Also for move to private activity you should first check the file
permissions and if all the files are not movable then notify the user about
it.
On Wednesday, 28. March 2012. 9.52.20 Djuro Drljaca wrote:
Why don't you just let the user decide what he wants to do ... let him
choose between move to private activity and copy to private
activity.
It is all or nothing. If you allow the user to choose anything related to
security, it will
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/
---
(Updated March 29, 2012, 2:37 a.m.)
Review request for KDE Runtime and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/
---
(Updated March 29, 2012, 1:58 a.m.)
Review request for KDE Runtime and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review11899
---
Excuse my naivity here, but how does this make sense? If a
On March 27, 2012, 9:56 a.m., Sebastian Kügler wrote:
Excuse my naivity here, but how does this make sense? If a user asks to
make certain data private, he expects them to be not available in
unencrypted fashion anymore. Copying to the encrypted folder doesn't solve
this, as the file
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review11903
---
Hm, moving a .desktop file seems wrong to me in any case, that
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/
---
(Updated March 27, 2012, 2:22 p.m.)
Review request for KDE Runtime and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review11909
---
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible
On March 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible attempts??
Excuse my ignorance, but why are system resources actually needed to be
*moved* anywhere by a random user - what means they're now gone in their
original location
On March 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible attempts??
Excuse my ignorance, but why are system resources actually needed to be
*moved* anywhere by a random user - what means they're now gone in their
original location
On March 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible attempts??
Excuse my ignorance, but why are system resources actually needed to be
*moved* anywhere by a random user - what means they're now gone in their
original location
On March 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible attempts??
Excuse my ignorance, but why are system resources actually needed to be
*moved* anywhere by a random user - what means they're now gone in their
original location
On March 27, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote:
Does the new patch actually *silently* skip move impossible attempts??
Excuse my ignorance, but why are system resources actually needed to be
*moved* anywhere by a random user - what means they're now gone in their
original location
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/
---
Review request for KDE Runtime and Plasma.
Description
---
When
22 matches
Mail list logo
