KDE-Forum.org

I found that my hard disk would not spin down if I left my PC because the following file was being updated about twice per minute:
"~/.kde/share/config/knotesrc"

Apparently, knotes repetitively updates an "AlarmsLastChecked" configuration line in that file even if its "alarms" option is disabled.

I find the post-it style notes on the desktop to be useful - but is there a way to stop this repetitive disk writing? Does the most recent version of knotes still do this?

I have KDE 3.4.2, with knotes 0.5, which came with Mandriva 2006.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a code guru, but I've tried to make sense of it. Has something gone wrong with the revision control, or am I misunderstanding what it's all about?

In #102546 , I can this text see at the end of the "CVS commit", dated 12-Apr-2005. (I'd have guessed the the minus signs indicated a deletion.)

--- kdepim/knotes/knotesalarm.cpp #1.4:1.5
at at -70,6 +70,4 at at void KNotesAlarm::checkAlarms()
...
- KNotesGlobalConfig::writeConfig();
-
if ( !notes.isEmpty() )
KMessageBox::informationList( 0, i18n("The following notes triggered alarms:"), notes, i18n("Alarm") );

When I look at the source for the stable 3.4 branch, I find a changelog for Knotes, with a datestamp on the changelog file itself of 23-May-2005, but its text only lists changes up to 21-Feb-2005, not including change #102546:
kdepim/knotes/ChangeLog?v=3.4-branch

The changelog for Knotes on 3.5 goes up to 20-Feb-2006, including the reference to change #102546, so that's OK, I guess:
kdepim/knotes/ChangeLog?v=3.5-branch

However, when I look at the sourcecode for knotesalarm.cpp, there is no difference between the 3.4 and 3.5 branches, and they both contain the code that I presumed should have been deleted (these files are only 77 lines long, and the relevant code is at the end):
kdepim/knotes/knotesalarm.cpp?v=3.4-branch
kdepim/knotes/knotesalarm.cpp?v=3.5-branch

If you look at my last paragraph there, knotesalarm.cpp in 3.5 is identical with that in 3.4, and it looks to me as though bugfix #102546 has not been applied at all. I'm hoping that somebody that understands the system would look at it.

You're right. I thought that the second minus sign in the change not indicated that the following line that was shown should be removed, but I realise that just meant remove the blank line. Somehow I missed seeing that the first line that was shown had been removed.Thanks for your help.