On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:57:25 +0100, Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mar, 01-03-2005 a las 17:46 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru escribió:
> > Just as I was testing the Simple theme earlier with gnome-themes 2.9.92 on
> > Arch Linux, the following happens, on Firefox/Thunderbird
El mar, 01-03-2005 a las 17:46 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru escribiÃ:
> Just as I was testing the Simple theme earlier with gnome-themes 2.9.92 on
> Arch Linux, the following happens, on Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla only:
> http://www.gnomefiles.org/shots/bug1.png
I see this lots of time too, in my w
Just as I was testing the Simple theme earlier with gnome-themes 2.9.92 on
Arch Linux, the following happens, on Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla only:
http://www.gnomefiles.org/shots/bug1.png
I removed the code snippet Callum added a few months ago, but the problem is
still there (it seems to be a ge
Perhaps a darker button colour would have be suitable, but not that
colour. That is much too dark, the pink prelight also leaves a lot to be
desired. As well as the green tinge on depressed widgets.
All in all it makes it look rather ugly compared to the old one, which
is at least bearable.
Sure, t
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:12 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>>http://oracle.bridgewayconsulting.com.au/~davyd/misc/gtk-theme-nuts.png
>>This seems completely "b0rked" to me.
>I like what I see there better than the normal version that will be reverted
>back to. Granted, the button color is a tin
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:52:54 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Removing the insetting makes the theme look so flat and old and boring that
> >it ain't even funny:
> >http://www.osnews.com/img/9810/cl.png
> >Please, don't remove the insettiness/color of the menu. Leave i
> >http://oracle.bridgewayconsulting.com.au/~davyd/misc/gtk-theme-nuts.png
> >This seems completely "b0rked" to me.
>
> I just installed the latest version of gnome-themes and tried the "broken"
> Simple. I like what I see there better than the normal version that will
> be reverted back to.
I
[IMPORTANT: Please respond to either gnome-vfs-list@gnome.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or on the specific bugzilla bugs below]
For this release we've done a major rework on the SMB method. Many
deadlock and crasher problems were resolved. However some regression
issues have come to light on certain SMB o
http://oracle.bridgewayconsulting.com.au/~davyd/misc/gtk-theme-nuts.png
This seems completely "b0rked" to me.
I just installed the latest version of gnome-themes and tried the "broken"
Simple.
I like what I see there better than the normal version that will be reverted
back to. Granted, the butto
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 11:02 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> Rodney Dawes wrote:
>
> >Currently, intltool is distributing the generated .gmo files, within
> >tarballs. Christian Persch recently filed a bug against intltool, as
> >this still causes some issues with builddir != srcdir. I'd prefer to
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:00 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:18:47 +0800, Davyd Madeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:49 +, Calum Benson wrote:
>>
>> >Well, I said I'd revert it if it caused anyone a problem and I'm still
>> >happy to do so, but at t
Hey Calum,
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 18:54 +, Calum Benson wrote:
> > you could have reply to me to my email I sent you some months ago
> asking for the status of
> > the change.
>
> I did, attached again just for the record.
[snip]
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 23:04 -0700, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrot
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:18:47 +0800, Davyd Madeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:49 +, Calum Benson wrote:
>
> >Well, I said I'd revert it if it caused anyone a problem and I'm still
> >happy to do so, but at this late stage I guess it's a release team
> >decision.
>
>
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 18:49, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> I was installing the new versions of gnome-themes to see the change, to no
> avail. I sent him an email on December to ask for the status of the change,
> but I got no reply.
I never got that one I'm afraid... sorry about that, we did ha
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 18:01, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> >http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-themes/gtk-themes/Simple/gtkrc?r1=1.6&r2=1.7
> >It was a patch from Eugenia that I applied six months ago, that I said
> >I'd revert if people complained.
>
> AAARGH...
> That's why my change was never vis
Did you send a patch, or did you send a code snippet that Calum had
to merge in manually?
It was a code snippet, I am not an un/official Gnome developer to have or
need Gnome's source code around to make diffs.
I simply edited the gtkrc to create a more usable Default/Raleigh theme and
I sent it
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 10:01 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>>http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-themes/gtk-themes/Simple/gtkrc?r1=1.6&r2=1.7
>>
>>It was a patch from Eugenia that I applied six months ago, that I said
>>I'd revert if people complained.
>
>AAARGH...
>That's why my change was never
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-themes/gtk-themes/Simple/gtkrc?r1=1.6&r2=1.7
It was a patch from Eugenia that I applied six months ago, that I said
I'd revert if people complained.
AAARGH...
That's why my change was never visible on my updates of the gnome-themes
package! Because you placed th
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:49 +, Calum Benson wrote:
>Well, I said I'd revert it if it caused anyone a problem and I'm still
>happy to do so, but at this late stage I guess it's a release team
>decision.
Sure.
Well, I've been shooting with the patch reverted. Shaun, how much
documentation will
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:41, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> What's the call?
Well, I said I'd revert it if it caused anyone a problem and I'm still
happy to do so, but at this late stage I guess it's a release team
decision.
Cheeri,
Calum.
--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ire
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 16:37 +, Calum Benson wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 15:42, Davyd Madeley wrote:
>> Can someone *PLEASE* explain what's going on here? We've already had one
>> call to revert the patch (plus one call from someone who doesn't count).
>
>It was a patch from Eugenia that I ap
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 15:42, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> Can someone *PLEASE* explain what's going on here? We've already had one
> call to revert the patch (plus one call from someone who doesn't count).
It was a patch from Eugenia that I applied six months ago, that I said
I'd revert if people comp
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 00:59 -0500, Seth Nickell wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:15:45 +1100, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At that point, Seth's email was *crystal clear* that this WILL be the
> > > default theme of Gnome 2.12.
> >
> > Seth confirmed that we were TALKING abo
Doing screenshots for the release notes, I don't know if any of you have
noticed, what the default theme looks like.
http://oracle.bridgewayconsulting.com.au/~davyd/misc/gtk-theme-nuts.png
This seems completely "b0rked" to me.
The offending patch would seem to be this one:
http://cvs.gnome.org/v
The page is http://live.gnome.org/GnomeImplementation
On mar, 2005-03-01 at 13:56 +0100, Benoit Caccinolo wrote:
>Thanks for this good reply. I'm not the only one trying to understand
>the reason of the usage of C in Gnome, so to stop future annoying
>mails, like mine :), I will open a page on
Hi,
Le mardi 01 mars 2005 Ã 11:02 +0800, James Henstridge a Ãcrit :
>Rodney Dawes wrote:
>
>>Currently, intltool is distributing the generated .gmo files, within
>>tarballs. Christian Persch recently filed a bug against intltool, as
>>this still causes some issues with builddir != srcdir. I'd pref
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:39 +, Calum Benson wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 02:45, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>
>> The menu has to stand out because otherwise feels like a bunch
>> of characters in a row (like a status bar), rather than something clickable
>> and usable.
>
>However, it's a fairl
Thanks for this good reply. I'm not the only one trying to understand
the reason of the usage of C in Gnome, so to stop future annoying
mails, like mine :), I will open a page on live.gnome.org with a begin
of explanation. The contribution experienced people in Gnome would be
really great.
On m
tir, 01,.03.2005 kl. 12.33 +, skrev Bill Haneman:
>Kjartan Maraas wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Padraig put quite a bit of work in at one point, but his patches were
>>>left unreviewed and he gave up. He no longer works on this codebase.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Can you elaborate on what you mean by "
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 02:45, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> The menu has to stand out because otherwise feels like a bunch
> of characters in a row (like a status bar), rather than something clickable
> and usable.
However, it's a fairly well-established convention that inset things
with a backgro
Kjartan Maraas wrote:
...
Padraig put quite a bit of work in at one point, but his patches were
left unreviewed and he gave up. He no longer works on this codebase.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "He no longer works on this
codebase."?
Err, he doesn't do bugfixing and patching i
tir, 01,.03.2005 kl. 12.01 +, skrev Bill Haneman:
>Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>Keep in mind that VTE could be a _lot_ worse. It basically works and
>>doesn't distract any of the OS vendors by making them _have_ to spend a
>>lot of time on it right now. i.e. it doesn't have showstopper
Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le lundi 28 février 2005 à 22:57 +0100, Kjartan Maraas a écrit :
There is one bugreport with patches that I think should be looked at
before 2.10:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137864
It would be very nice if we could ship with the patches in here included
as w
Havoc Pennington wrote:
...
Keep in mind that VTE could be a _lot_ worse. It basically works and
doesn't distract any of the OS vendors by making them _have_ to spend a
lot of time on it right now. i.e. it doesn't have showstoppers. Lots of
stuff that could be improved sure, but not showstoppers (o
Benoit, Miroslav,
This is not the type of discussion we want to see on this list. It is
just not constructive.
See:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-February/msg00348.html
for a longer explanation on why you should try and restrain yourselves
from
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 18:45 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>>> Though Clearlooks is a very pleasant theme overall, I find that
>>> _inset_ menu bar definitely weird, and contrasts with just about any
>>> other theme out there. It gives me a strange and uncomfortable feeling
>>> looking at that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a good implementation of this concept could it be possible to use a
real object language?
This topic has been rehashed in the past. Surprisingly enough, it just
keeps coming up again.
I really don't want ot troll but I think this could be really
interesting to use
Hi,
Reading the interesting page about the futur of Gnome:
http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero, I found the concept of making
objects really enthusiasming:
I mean shifting complexity to what users want to do instead of
computer nonsense
- first-class user-interesting objects such as "email", "
Le lundi 28 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 18:40 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero a Ãcrit :
>On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 23:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
>> Matthias has a nice explanation of what is possibly happening:
>> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146075#c89
>>
>> I'm not sure it explains why the patc
Le lundi 28 février 2005 à 22:57 +0100, Kjartan Maraas a écrit :
> There is one bugreport with patches that I think should be looked at
> before 2.10:
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137864
>
> It would be very nice if we could ship with the patches in here included
> as well. I got
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I agree with Jeff here. When I read that story on osnews, my reaction was
> > "What the fuck? Since when does _redhat_ decide which theme is going to be
> > the default theme for gnome? They can decide the default gnome theme for
> > redhat all they w
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Seth Nickell wrote:
> This is not germane to the discussion, since Jeff does not need a "me
> too". Please see:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-February/msg00348.html
> . I know you have strong feelings you want to express, but please find
Sorry, maybe
These modules have all branched (gnome-2-10) for GNOME 2.10.
-JP
--
JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novell, Inc.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
43 matches
Mail list logo
