Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-12-09 Thread Thomas Lübking
> On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote: > > service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352 > > > > > > "!QUrl::isLocalFile()"? > > Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-12-09 Thread Albert Astals Cid
> On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote: > > service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352 > > > > > > "!QUrl::isLocalFile()"? > > Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-04-09 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> 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: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#rev

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-30 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote: > > service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352 > > > > > > "!QUrl::isLocalFile()"? > > Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-30 Thread Thomas Lübking
> On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote: > > service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352 > > > > > > "!QUrl::isLocalFile()"? > > Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote: > isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-30 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> On March 30, 2012, 8:18 p.m., Thomas Lübking wrote: > > service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp, line 352 > > > > > > "!QUrl::isLocalFile()"? isLocalFile() was introduced in Qt 4.8.0 and we still use Qt 4.7.4 in Meego ima

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-30 Thread Thomas Lübking
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/#review12037 --- service/jobs/nepomuk/Move.cpp

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-30 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104417/ --- (Updated March 30, 2012, 6:57 p.m.) Review request for KDE Runtime and Pla

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-28 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
--- 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 Pla

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-28 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
--- 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 Pla

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-28 Thread Ivan Cukic
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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-28 Thread Djuro Drljaca
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. _

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-28 Thread Ivan Čukić
--- 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Thomas Lübking
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Thomas Lübking
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Thomas Lübking
--- 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 att

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
--- 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 Pla

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Sebastian Kügler
--- 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Lamarque Vieira Souza
> 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

Re: Review Request: Copy files instead of moving if parent dir is not writable

2012-03-27 Thread Sebastian Kügler
--- 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 user