Re: Proposed module: gimmie applet
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 04:52 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Homepage: http://www.beatniksoftware.com/gimmie/ > svn/git/bzr/...: http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimmie/ > Proposal on d-d-l: > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2007-September/msg00441.html > > Short description: > == > Gimmie is a unique desktop organizer for Linux. It's designed to allow > easy interaction with all the applications, contacts, documents and > other things you use every day. > (Note: only the applet is proposed for inclusion) I like many of the ideas in Gimmie, but I'd like to see them integrated properly. This seems to be happening with Empathy and parts of OnlineDesktop and I expect them and Gimmie to work together to get the job done properly. It seems too early to preempt that. I'm also against just accepting a module which does so many things. I'd much rather have a discussion about accepting a People applet. There's plenty of complication in that alone, though we could deal with that and end up with a great new feature that can gradually be used by other parts of the desktop too. But instead we are being forced to give a yes/no for an applet that can be a People applet, a Programs applet, a Library applet, or a "Linux" applet that seems to be an overview of them all, all visible to the user as a meaninglessly-named "Gimmie" applet with preferences to turn it into the different separate applets. I don't need to take all this all together as if it's some kind of new paradigm that I should just switch over to. Even if some people have decided that you like that whole system, we need to be persuaded in terms of the merits of the individual parts and we need the chance to accept them one by one. I'm not convinced that the maintainer understands this, so accepting Gimmie as is wouldn't make it any more likely that the necessary discussion and work would happen. > Summary so far: > === > + again, this is only about the applet > + some issues that needed to be solved first, and Alex sent a status >update indicating they were fixed > + there used to be a lack of maintainer resources. Current status >unknown. > + stability used to be an issue. Current status unknown, but should be >better. > + performance/memory footprint? (it was just someone wondering about >it, not people saying that it's bad) > + a few +1 from gimmie users > > Alex can probably send a small update. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module decisions for 2.22
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 00:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > Retracted: > PolicyKit & PolicyKit-gnome (external dependency) Eeep. Do you think we can/should push intlclock into gnome-panel/applets/clock for 2.22? If so, we'll need PolicyKit (not PK-gnome as far as I can tell). Federico ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module decisions for 2.22
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:45 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 00:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > Retracted: > > PolicyKit & PolicyKit-gnome (external dependency) I kinda dislike the wording here. I didn't retract anything. What did happen was that several members of the release team pointed out to me that it was just an external dependency and thus didn't need to be proposed. > Eeep. Do you think we can/should push intlclock into > gnome-panel/applets/clock for 2.22? If so, we'll need PolicyKit (not > PK-gnome as far as I can tell). It should use PolicyKit-gnome (for code reuse etc.) and as far as I understand it's fine for it to do so. Both PK and PK-gnome are blessed external dependencies. Hope this clarifies. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module decisions for 2.22
On Jan 9, 2008 5:51 PM, David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:45 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 00:34 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > > > Retracted: > > > PolicyKit & PolicyKit-gnome (external dependency) > > I kinda dislike the wording here. I didn't retract anything. What did > happen was that several members of the release team pointed out to me > that it was just an external dependency and thus didn't need to be > proposed. Clarification: ...that it was an external dependency *which no one plans to have a hard dependency on*. Huge difference. > > Eeep. Do you think we can/should push intlclock into > > gnome-panel/applets/clock for 2.22? If so, we'll need PolicyKit (not > > PK-gnome as far as I can tell). > > It should use PolicyKit-gnome (for code reuse etc.) and as far as I > understand it's fine for it to do so. Both PK and PK-gnome are blessed > external dependencies. ?? Blessed as far as gnome releases goes means allowed as a hard dependency for modules. PK and PK-gnome are not blessed external dependencies because you said that no hard dependencies were needed at this time. (I'd give my +1 for blessing them now if we need it, it just was assumed that we didn't need to discuss it.) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module decisions for 2.22
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:10 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > Blessed as far as gnome releases goes means allowed as a hard > dependency for modules. PK and PK-gnome are not blessed external > dependencies because you said that no hard dependencies were needed at > this time. Oh, the use in intlclock should be optional if it isn't already. That does not equate to "pull out PolicyKit deps" as I believe it made Fedoric think. Sorry for the confusion. David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module decisions for 2.22
On Jan 9, 2008 6:16 PM, David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:10 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > Blessed as far as gnome releases goes means allowed as a hard > > dependency for modules. PK and PK-gnome are not blessed external > > dependencies because you said that no hard dependencies were needed at > > this time. > > Oh, the use in intlclock should be optional if it isn't already. That > does not equate to "pull out PolicyKit deps" as I believe it made > Fedoric think. Sorry for the confusion. Ah, gotcha. :-) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Unifying the logout dialog, session management thoughts
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 14:03 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > I don't think we need a new module. Dan and Lucas have worked on a new > gnome-session with a dbus API. The dialog itself will be moved to > gnome-session, since we'll be able to do what we want with the dbus API. So, in the short term would it make sense for Josselin to put the code into gnome-session so that the dialog could be displayed with a "gnome-session-save --kill --show-dialog" Then the dialog can end up in the newer code when it has a DBUS interface. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
