On 10/09/13 20:19, Erick Pérez Castellanos wrote: > On 9 October 2013 14:13, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> wrote: > >> I guess I'm curious: why would this break apps? >> >> If your apps were relying on a specific user setting to show/hide icons, >> wasn't it technically broken already? There was no guarantee of the value >> of the setting. >> >> It seems that reducing the amount of user configurations an app developer >> would have to test in is a great idea for all. >> > > The point for an app developer would be: > Before: I set on one place, every button will show images > After: I have to go through all my code, looking for buttons to set the > option, and worst, If I want to make it an option for my user, I have to > recreate the settings scheme in my application.
Also, it certainly breaks user experience: The user could chose whether or not to use icons in his apps; There were some by default, options could be used to turn them off. Now they're off, with no way to get them back on but to get every app patched. And apps couldn't possibly have been prepared for that, since there was no deprecation period/warning... -j > > You certainly can see this when we are talking of huge application like > Evolution right ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
