> On March 14, 2016, 11:54 p.m., David Edmundson wrote: > > src/plasma/private/containment_p.cpp, line 198 > > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127373/diff/1/?file=450018#file450018line198> > > > > Why bother even having the check?
in any way is breaking the api, i didn't want to change the behavior by default, even tough it could remotely make sense to consider locking only affecting the availability of actions not the c++ api, but i don't like that too much, but as usual "systray is special" hmm, problems.. - Marco ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127373/#review93526 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 14, 2016, 2:54 p.m., Marco Martin wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127373/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 14, 2016, 2:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for Plasma and Ivan Čukić. > > > Repository: plasma-framework > > > Description > ------- > > so much for removing sytray-related hacks.. :/ > when the widgets are locked, must be possible to add/remoe widgets in the > sytemtray anyways, as their creation/destruction can depend from dbus > activation (or the first time you launch plasma with the new systray and it > must be populated) > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/plasma/private/containment_p.cpp a8b8343 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127373/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Marco Martin > >
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
