2012/11/15 Michael Blumenkrantz <[email protected]> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:49:58 +0100 > Davide Andreoli <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2012/11/15 Carsten Haitzler <[email protected]> > > > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:04:59 +0100 Davide Andreoli < > [email protected] > > > > > > > said: > > > > > > > 2012/11/14 Carsten Haitzler <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:04:40 -0800 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > > > > > <[email protected]> said: > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively work to have such modules in tree. > > > > > > > > > > yup. if they come in tree, then we "take responsibility for it". > > > > > > > > > > > Since I've joined the project I saw (or helped) many modules to > be > > > > > included > > > > > > in core. All it takes is little effort to make them good quality > and > > > fit > > > > > a > > > > > > purpose. tclock is stupid as clock does the same (I blame e17 > for not > > > > > > having digital clock since day0), places could be included with > some > > > > > effort. > > > > > > > > > > indeed. though imho places should really become a feature of efm > rather > > > > > than a > > > > > module of its own (well feature of fileman module). e17 needs/wants > > > some of > > > > > these 3rd party modules - cpu and mem meters for example, but we > just > > > > > havent > > > > > had the time to deal with it. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed the inclusion of Places many times in the past and we > never > > > > found a deal > > > > Places is in a good shape, I support it and (as far as I know) it > doesn't > > > > have issues. > > > > I agree we should include it in the "official" modules, but I > disagree to > > > > "merge" it with efm, > > > > the reason is simple: I don't want to force the user to use efm, the > user > > > > should be free > > > > to use his preferred file manager and still be able to use Places. > > > > > > > > That said, I will be happy to include Places in the e tree, as it is > now, > > > > not merged with efm. > > > > can this be a solution? > > > > > > including it and not making it prt of efm is admitting that efm is > crap and > > > users cant and don't want to use it. regardless of what efm may or may > not > > > be > > > the message is a bad one and it basically encourages us to give up on > it. > > > and > > > that i will not have. > > > > > > > sooner or later you have to admit it: efm is crap, no one want to use it > > and no > > one is interested in developing it. > > I'll admit that I take particular offense at your claim given the amount > of time and effort I've put into making it NOT crap. If you're going to > make broad statements like this, at least provide some reasons to back them > up. >
Sorry, really! I didn't want to offend you. I have also spent lots of my (free) time on it in the past. but I am equally offended by e17 that, every day, say that my module is unstable! I think it's crap, or at least it doesn't fulfill my needs, for too much reasons so I simply don't use it. If you like we can start another thread to discuss the efm behavior, but warning, my first topic will be: "E is a window manager not a file manager, I dont want my WM to manage my files" peace and love :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
