----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102905/#review7590 -----------------------------------------------------------
this looks reasonable to me; would be good to have a "shipit" confirmation from ivan as well, though, as he knows this code best. btw, this is exactly the sort of issue i was concerned would occur due to having an activities daemon that itself syncs (conditionally) with a second backend (nepomuk). i still believe that a simple API that lays on top of Nepomuk directly (yes, which means requiring Nepomuk to exist) would be much more sane and would remove yet another background process. if/when we get to looking over this part of the infrastructure again, it would be good to re-examine the need and purpose of kactivitymanagerd - Aaron J. Seigo On Oct. 18, 2011, 3:04 p.m., Marco Martin wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102905/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 18, 2011, 3:04 p.m.) > > > Review request for Plasma and Ivan Čukić. > > > Description > ------- > > on the first boot, probably due to the order services are started up, even if > all the activities do exist, the corresponding Nepomuk resources don't until > a reboot. > this tries to ensure resources existence by calling > syncActivitiesWithNepomuk(); as soon nepomuk becomes available, since is not > sure the nepomuk service exists at the time of the activitymanager ctor > > > Diffs > ----- > > service/ActivityManager.cpp 86f1152 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102905/diff/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Marco Martin > >
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
