Hi Linus, Thanks for the patches. I have been really busy, so I apologize for not responding sooner to the public or private emails. In general, I think it makes sense to include your capability into metacity. The clean-ups are always appreciated too. Unfortunately, I still don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to quickly respond to a couple points (and hopefully get to the patches before too long, though Thomas is already handling some of them)...
On 2/19/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh. One of the reasons I dislike bugzilla: it works differently for > everybody. The gnome bugzilla looks a lot prettier than the kernel one, > but either I'm confused or you are, because you seem to have made all the > patches separate bugzilla entries (maybe that's just how gnome patches are > supposed to be done? It was nonobvious to actually find the discussion > about the patches themselves from the bug you pointed at ;^). (Sidenote: I would have preferred Christian creating two bugs, one against metacity and one against the control center, with multiple patches per bug--but it's not a big deal) > > In regards to Devil's pie I didn't link it as an example of something > > that did exactly what you wanted, I linked it to show that there where > > tools for doing further customizing of components in GNOME. > > Sure. And that's what "control-center" is too. > > I'm a bit confused why it's apparently considered to be a good idea to do > something in an add-on program, but not in the standard control center > app? I think it's more a question of target audience and design criteria. In terms of your particular feature, my personal opinion is that it belongs in neither the control center nor Devil's pie--though I do believe the feature belongs in metacity and deserves to be part of some GUI configuration. A full explanation would require a longer email, and one better suited to a different mailing list. But then again, I don't really have any control or apparently even any influence over the control center anyway (even the window manager related configuration parts). > > My feeling was that you where extrapolating from your one missing > > feature that GNOME offered no configurable features. > > Sure I was. No question about that. But I'm not exactly extrapolating from > a single feature. It was just one _I_ happened to care about, but others > care about other features, and looking at the bugzilla discussions, I > notice that people there argue about removing *other* config options (ie > look at how there's somebody pointing to bugzilla entry 154614: "Consider > removing the auto-raise preference from the user interface"). > > In other words, in the very same discussion about the one feature _I_ care > about, there's another gnome developer who argues that gnome should remove > ANOTHER configuration entry that somebody else is bound to care about. > > So I object to you claiming that I'm only extrapolating from "one missing > feature". For _me_ it was one missing feature. But that's not what I use > to extrapolate from. I use the *fact* that Gnome has in the past removed > other features, and is *still* apparently talking about removing yet more > config options from view. > > WHY? It's a disease, I tell you. The apparent inability to accept the fact > that we're not all a uniform gray paste. > > That very bugzilla entry shows exactly the problem I have. Apparently > gnome thinks that "few people" using a feature means that it shouldn't be > exposed. Can you say "gray uniform goo, based on some populist message > where experts and people who have an opinion are to be shunned and looked > down upon"? Heh, I happen to be the filer of bug 154614. The reason it was filed was not "few people use this feature" but rather "it is causing lots of collateral damage, making the cost of exposing the feature too high". The arguments in the bug about the userbase of the feature were more about why removing the option from the UI was a better choice for fixing that specific problem than adding several paragraphs of explanatory text to the configuration dialog (note that I did not suggest removing the functionality from metacity). I do admit that I don't think I was particularly coherent in that report, however. Also, FWIW, I'm one of the people who uses not just one, but multiple features in metacity that are used by "few people". I can list at least three such options off the top of my head, and am arguably from a much smaller niche/userbase than someone who wants to configure button click actions. I guess that makes me a person with an opinion that _I_ shun and look down upon? ;-) To be fair, though, you have made some good points. Metacity is still missing a number of features I think it should have, has a number of places in need of some code cleanup, and suffers from more bugs than I'd like. If only there were more hours in the day... Anyway, thanks for helping fix some of it. Cheers, Elijah _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
