Hi Zeeshan, Thanks for working on this. I've tried the patches and as you say there are some issues to work out:
- The assistant comes up quite wide. I think the whitespace constraints that were put in place to make the layout somewhat work in super wide displays now work against us, making it unnecessary wide. I am also wondering if the sidebar really gives enough indication of progress to justify densifying the view. Maybe we would be better off with a "(step 1 of 5)" or even "(1 of 5)" as a suffix to the title. Maybe Allan wants to chime in? http://jimmac.musichall.cz/stuff/too-wide.png - We end up with a sub optimal dialog within a dialog for when selecting an image/iso from the filesystem. It's hopefully just a fallback, so it's not as tragic. The situation sort of repeats itself in the customization though, trying to be sneaky and closing the parent modal (and as a sidenote, having the runtime indicators and force shutdown button is quite unfortunate in this context too). I'm not sure how time intensive it would be to do the modification either directly in place or with a revealer+back button (possibly colliding with the assistant flow. This definitely needs some design time. - The properties dialog sidebar needs some whitespace love under the shutdown button... http://jimmac.musichall.cz/stuff/boxes-padding.png cheers On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeesha...@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper <ak...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:02 +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >>> While we await the second ack from release-team, I was hoping >>> I can ask for another break: >> >> Please always start a separate thread for a separate request in case you >> expect me to understand, follow, and even reply to your mail. >> In exchange and as a sign of appreciation I might try to avoid dropping >> 15 entirely different bugs in a single Bugzilla ticket about Boxes. > > Aye aye, sir! > >>> Put wizard & properties in a dialog - >>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733367 >> >> Small comment about the patches: I'm not totally happy with the line >> "// This file is part of GNOME Boxes. License: LGPLv2+" >> in the attached patches, but it's not worse than before. IANAL, but IMHO >> every source file should have a proper header with a copyright and >> license notice. > > That is nothing new. Thats the convention we have always followed in > Boxes. I tend to follow the general conventions unless I have a good > reason not to so this is not coming from me. Marc-Andre started the > project and he made this decision. > > Feel free to file a bug about this and we can certainly think about > changing that for all source files. > >> (If .vala files are considered source files.) > > What else should they be considered? > >>> Designers would love to have this and so would I and Lasse in 3.14 >>> already. >> >> Same opinion as Fred: *If* designers have tested this and would like to >> see it, here is another r-t approval. > > As I said, they have not tested this but they do want it. Putting > Jakub and Allan in CC to give their opinions. > > -- > Regards, > > Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > ________________________________________ > Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ -- Jakub Steiner <jim...@gmail.com> http://jimmac.musichall.cz _______________________________________________ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.