On 2011-05-27 at 11:04, Morten Welinder wrote: > > you can say that all you want, but it's absolutely *not* a bug. > > Of course it is. With this bug, programs crash where they other- > wise could limp on.
potentially eating away data? without schema you don't have a default to fall back to for application preferences and for state. it might end up deleting existing account data, for instance. or eating your files. > It's like changing all g_return_if_fail calls into asserts no, it's nothing like that. > It is absolutely not like missing your main ui file. You can't limp > on from that in a meaningful way. no, it's even *worse*, because a missing UI will not eat your data. > And note, that in the gconf age handling this was not a problem > at all. yes, and it was one of the major design issues identified by the gconf authors years ago, and one of the pre-conditions for a new settings system. > This bug makes it hard to keep multiple versions of a program > installed without making settings per-version which has its own > problems. it doesn't have any more problems than using two different libraries, or using two different prefixes, or using two different UI files. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list