(as clarified on IRC already, but for lists readers) On Wed, Oct 04, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Yeah, we both know the code is around, but not used anymore. You just > > can't say they want this version of the code to be the default. I'm > > just stating the obvious: we're diverging from upstream for a problem > > which is not Debian specific. > Should we also remove all our bugfix patches?
"You just can't say they want this version of the code to be the default." IOW, you would be willingly doing something that upstream doesn't like. You can't compare that with bugfixes. > > Why would one *not* want to always save sessions when one wants to save > > his session? I personally would like to never save session, which is > > the current default, and I'm happy about. > Because one would want to customize his *default* session. Ok, this wasn't listed in one of the use cases, and it's actually the main use case you were concerned about: editing the default session is the easiest when you can simply run the programs and decide to save it. > This is why I proposed option 3. For this use case, exiting the session > just to save it is even awkward. Hmm, I understood option 3 as a new button to save session and logout, as an alternative to the logout option; now that the use case is clearer to me, and that I re-read your option, I understand that it was about adding a button to only save the current set of applications as the default session. The conclusion we reached on IRC is that revamping the logout window (for example to support hibernation) is a separate problem than customization of the default session. This option 3 sounds as a very good plan, and I agree with you that the best place is in gnome-session-properties. This will however bring the translations problem. Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
