Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 6: Proxy Configuration dialog rewrite

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102802/ --- (Updated Oct. 14, 2011, 5:32 a.m.) Review request for KDE Base Apps. Cha

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 6: Proxy Configuration dialog rewrite

> On Oct. 14, 2011, 12:05 a.m., Christoph Feck wrote: > > Nice, work, as always :) Only one question: Do the port spin boxes need the > > "Port:" labels, as seen in the ASCII drawings from bug 147340? Or would it > > clutter the interface? Maybe a "Hostname" and "Port" headline for the two > >

Re: Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 6: Proxy Configuration dialog rewrite

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102802/#review7304 --- Nice, work, as always :) Only one question: Do the port spin box

Re: Review Request: facePerm is a KDM option, unrelated to the user setting his face (for other apps)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:27:45PM -0400, Steven Sroka wrote: > >On 13 October 2011 16:53, Ralf Jung wrote: > >> No tabs, 4 spaces instead. > >> > >> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Kdelibs_Coding_Style > > Almost the complete main.cpp is using tabs currently (except for > > KCMUserAccount::decod

Re: Review Request: facePerm is a KDM option, unrelated to the user setting his face (for other apps)

>On 13 October 2011 16:53, Ralf Jung wrote: > Hi, > >> No tabs, 4 spaces instead. >> >> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Kdelibs_Coding_Style > Almost the complete main.cpp is using tabs currently (except for > KCMUserAccount::decodeImgDrop, which uses 2 spaces) so I used it for the two > lines I

Re: Review Request: kio_http: fix keepalive timeout parsing

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102822/#review7302 --- This review has been submitted with commit 3be117c3007aadde359d

Review Request: Proxy overhaul Part 6: Proxy Configuration dialog rewrite

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102802/ --- Review request for KDE Base Apps. Description --- This patch complete

Re: [proposal] KSecretsService components moving from playground

On 10/13/2011 10:28 PM, Martin Koller wrote: On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 01:09:51 Valentin Rusu wrote: I personally have been looking forward to KSecretsService and I like the idea of leaving KSecretsService unused by default for now, but it should at least be stressed to downstream to leave

Re: [proposal] KSecretsService components moving from playground

On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 01:09:51 Valentin Rusu wrote: > > I personally have been looking forward to KSecretsService and I like > > the idea of leaving KSecretsService unused by default for now, but it > > should at least be stressed to downstream to leave it off by default > > and why you c

Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Thomas Lübking wrote: > Stupid question, but since kdm links X11 and communicates with the > greeter anyway: can we simply have it grab keyboard and mouse (must > create a window in the session for this purpose, but it runs on root > privs) > using the kdm

Re: Review Request: kio_http: fix keepalive timeout parsing

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102822/#review7299 --- Ship it! No objections from me either. I confused the iteratat

Review Request: Improved proxy data caching in KProtocolManager

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102840/ --- Review request for kdelibs. Description --- The attached patch attemp

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be

Am 13.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Martin Gräßlin: On Thursday 13 October 2011 20:49:29 Matthias Fuchs wrote: I understand and agree to the technical reasons against keeping the current architecture but that does not mean that I agree to all the other arguments. I just want to point out once more tha

Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be

On Thursday 13 October 2011 20:49:29 Matthias Fuchs wrote: > I understand and agree to the technical reasons against keeping the > current architecture but that does not mean that I agree to all the > other arguments. I just want to point out once more that we will not remove anything which is pos

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be

Am 13.10.2011 20:21, schrieb Thomas Lübking: [...] it now had the chance to save a lot of energy AND the screen by simply turning the screen off, since nobody is watching. > [...] So the only sane reason these things to show up "automatically" is that the system is abandoned and than it's no mo

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

Am Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:41 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne : > Sure it can. Just click "Test" in the Display & Monitor screen saver > options. ;) There's probably some DBus call to do the same thing. i thought about "kstart --fullscreen kdeasciiquarium", fails because the window us resized externally

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

Am Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:24:55 +0200 schrieb todd rme : > At least for me wobbly windows provides visual feedback when moving > windows that I find useful. I used it a lot on compiz, but the Kwin > one never really worked all that well but I would have it enabled if > it did. Try advanced mode, the

Re: Review Request: Cleanup the use of HTTPProtocol::httpClose

> On Oct. 12, 2011, 10:51 p.m., Andreas Hartmetz wrote: > > This changeset changes some important parts without obvious (to me) gain. > > Before I spend an hour or two thinking through all the cases, which may or > > may not catch potential regressions, I'd like to know what this does for us. >

Re: Review Request: facePerm is a KDM option, unrelated to the user setting his face (for other apps)

No tabs, 4 spaces instead. http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Kdelibs_Coding_Style On 12 October 2011 12:55, Ralf Jung wrote: >This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102799/ > Review request for KDE Base Apps. > By Ralf Jung. > > *Up

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koller wrote: > On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and >> > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. >> I have to disagree. By defau

Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

On Thursday 13 October 2011 17:29:16 Martin Koller wrote: > On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and > > > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. > > > > I have to disagree.

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and > > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. > I have to disagree. By default we ship no effect which is "bling" > only. They all add p

Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote: Let me give my view here: > Do you have configured a "saver" beyond dpms? > And if, why? > Do you use a locker beyond a black screen? > And if, why? yes to both (diashow). Reason: make other people wandering by (or sitting in the

Re: Some help for recreating the Plasma Tool Box in QML

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Mark wrote: > Hi KDE folks, > > It's been a long while since i last actively contributed to the KDE > project. Sadly having a job is sucking up way more time then i would like. > > In recent months I've started to experiment with QML and started to like > it. Provi

Re: small license problem in kdelibs

On Monday 26 September 2011 5:45:43 AM Marco Martin wrote: > Hi all, > > last days, after we asked some more pair of eyes to check the licensing in > plasma active, a thing was discovered: many LGPL licensed files had an header > like that (you know, power of copy and paste ;) > > /* > * Copy

Re: Call for the next release codename to be Ritchie

> Sure, if a naming flamefest can't be big enough on a small list, let's do it > on a list with more subscribers. Ok, I apologize. Didn't really exoect something like this to become a flamefest. Mail sent to the r-t.

Re: Call for the next release codename to be Ritchie

On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:49:19 Ivan Čukić wrote: > > You want the release team for this ;-) > > Yes, as I said: > > I guess I should have posted this to release team mailing list, but > > this way the topic will have more people involved. > > Just wanted a general core-dev response, not onl

Re: Call for the next release codename to be Ritchie

> You want the release team for this ;-) Yes, as I said: > I guess I should have posted this to release team mailing list, but > this way the topic will have more people involved. Just wanted a general core-dev response, not only those who make releases. -- Ivan

Re: Call for the next release codename to be Ritchie

A Dijous, 13 d'octubre de 2011, Ivan Čukić vàreu escriure: > I guess I should have posted this to release team mailing list, but > this way the topic will have more people involved. > > As you all (probably) know, Dennis Ritchie has passed away. In my > opinion, we should somehow make tribute to h

Call for the next release codename to be Ritchie

I guess I should have posted this to release team mailing list, but this way the topic will have more people involved. As you all (probably) know, Dennis Ritchie has passed away. In my opinion, we should somehow make tribute to him. I'm not sure the idea to name a release after him would be fitti

Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:38:11 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Dario Freddi wrote: > > 2011/10/12 Martin Gräßlin : > > > ok I have been thinking about it and have a new proposal: > > > * writing a kded module to only handle the screen locking (grab keybo

Re: Review Request: facePerm is a KDM option, unrelated to the user setting his face (for other apps)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102799/ --- (Updated Oct. 12, 2011, 4:55 p.m.) Review request for KDE Base Apps. Cha

R: Re: Review Request: kio_http: fix keepalive timeout parsing

>> Testing >> --- >> >> -Patched code compiles >> -Hacked a web server and made tests against following keep-alive header >> variants: >> "Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=99" >> "Keep-Alive: Timeout=5, max=99" (uppercase 'T') >> "Keep-Alive: Timeout=5 , max=99"(extra space before comma) >

Re: Review Request: kio_http: fix keepalive timeout parsing

> On Oct. 12, 2011, 5:55 a.m., Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > > kioslave/http/http.cpp, line 3107 > > > > > > This seems unnecessary to me since the parser produces a lower case > > token to begin with. hmm... i did mo