Ok, +2 from me then

Using a shared pointer seems like a pessimization. Could this be done with std::unique_ptr?

I'll be serving as the goal keeper for the next period.

It is (also) a noun, though MW spells it as "pop-up" [1]

Lambdas are generally faster to compile and execute. std::bind can make code less verbose, but that is not the case here (I'd say that lambdas win on succinctness here).

The parentheses are not necessary when a lambda has no arguments.

Different search bars are on different levels of usefulness.

Not sure what the implications are for this change, it does fix Dolphin showing folders in its

Ok, though a better approach IMO would be to fix linking the non-local URLs :)

Thanks!

Very nice, thanks. If you want I can accept this (after the Q_UNUSED change) and I'll do the UI patch separately.

• Would rather have a separate NetworkManager wrapper class implementation (a dummy implementation for when NM is disabled) than this.
• Also, instead of a cmake flag, it is more common to find_package and define the flag depending on whether it was found or not.
• What about the configuration UI?

Was more aimed at @nicolasfella :)

So... accepted? :)

Thanks for the suggestion!

Using loginctl for session locking as well

Looks ok to me.

The second one sounds ok

The problem with the original wording is mainly in using singular. It is for linking files to activities. I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe "Linking files to activities" would be better?

I pushed it by accident, and I didn't want to revert just to push it to the phab again. Though, I did count that you'll check it out in the end even if it is already merged :)

If KRunner has multiple threads accessing the same sqlite database, then yes.

Vault uses FUSE, no block-level for the time being. I was toying with Tomb and preallocated fixed-size containers in the filsystem which uses Luks in the back, but I'm not sure it can be made to work properly.

Vault does not support public-private key encryption - it is out of the project's scope. And it would be quite strange for the user to see items like "KMail Index for ABCDEFGH01234... key" in the list of existing vaults. :)

"can't" should not be used in formal writings. Not sure how formal documentation is considered to be.

You can also switch to 'can't' as far as I'm concerned