Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jakub Steiner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > wrote: >> Sure but is the overall change good enough so I merge the changes >> already or you think some of the issues must be addressed before >> merging? > > The assistant issues, particularly the customization of the box > properties, make the initial experience much worse to what we have > now, I have to say. I would feel uneasy landing this as is. Ah ok, Fair enough. :) There is always the next cycle. Mockups would really help me ensure its read for next cycle btw. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > Sure but is the overall change good enough so I merge the changes > already or you think some of the issues must be addressed before > merging? The assistant issues, particularly the customization of the box properties, make the initial experience much worse to what we have now, I have to say. I would feel uneasy landing this as is. -- Jakub Steiner http://jimmac.musichall.cz ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jakub Steiner wrote: > Hi Zeeshan, > Thanks for working on this. I've tried the patches Thanks so much for trying. > 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 Sure but is the overall change good enough so I merge the changes already or you think some of the issues must be addressed before merging? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
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) wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper 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 http://jimmac.musichall.cz ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
Hi Zeeshan (and Andre)! On 2014-08-29 12:35, Andre Klapper wrote: Same opinion as Fred: *If* designers have tested this and would like to see it, here is another r-t approval. And of course if Documentation team is okay with regard to user docs and screenshots. A screenshot (figures/properties.png) and stub documentation page (properties.page.stub) is affected by this change. Please file a bug against the "documentation" component if the change goes in, so that the documentation team can track the necessary updates. -- http://amigadave.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
Hi Andre, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andre Klapper 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/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
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. > 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. (If .vala files are considered source files.) > 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. And of course if Documentation team is okay with regard to user docs and screenshots. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
Hi, On 29 Aug 2014 09:25, "Frederic Peters" wrote: > > Hi Zeeshan, > > > >> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710306 > > > > > > Hey Tim, sorry for being late with replies to freeze break requests. > > > > > > I'll grant you a +1 for the release team (selfishly, since I really > > > really want this feature). > > I'll second this. > > > > Thanks. While we await the second ack from release-team, I was hoping > > I can ask for another break: > > > > Put wizard & properties in a dialog - > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733367 > > Patches should ideally be marked as accepted before a freeze break is > requested; but if designers have tested it and are fine with it, > that's fine for me. Well these are from Boxes' only active maintainer so a review isn't required though I wouldn't mind some. :) Designers haven't tested it but I showed screenshots to jimmac and he was fine with the overall change. > Are the issues you're planning to fixes those mentioned in > https://bug733367.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=284772 ? Yeah. ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Gnome Boxes freeze break request
Hi Zeeshan, > >> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710306 > > > > Hey Tim, sorry for being late with replies to freeze break requests. > > > > I'll grant you a +1 for the release team (selfishly, since I really > > really want this feature). I'll second this. > Thanks. While we await the second ack from release-team, I was hoping > I can ask for another break: > > Put wizard & properties in a dialog - > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733367 Patches should ideally be marked as accepted before a freeze break is requested; but if designers have tested it and are fine with it, that's fine for me. Are the issues you're planning to fixes those mentioned in https://bug733367.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=284772 ? Fred ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Feature freeze break request for gnome-shell
Hi Carlos, > I would like to request a feature freeze break for gnome-shell in order to > include https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735625 , Now that the > shell has gestures support it's a bit of a shame that the one feature that > was truly inaccessible through touch remains like that :). This was made to > follow https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/Gestures btw. Fine, that's your 2 of 2. Fred ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: Freeze exceptions for gnome-maps
Hi, Jonas Danielsson wrote: > The bugs: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722871 - is the GtkPopover one Fine. > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731068 - is the via points > in routing. The patches are not marked as accepted. And https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731113 (check-in), I'd be with Matthias on that one, I would delay it as it depends on changes in goa (and a GNOME foundation account at foursquare). Fred ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
