On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
1) it was never exposed in a GUI
2) people building webpages can be considered more tech-savvy anyway,
and have
Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
> advertised these services with Bonjour, then we'd really have
> so
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 01:33 +0100, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> I've commited the patch along with a minor cleanup of mine. Maybe we
> need to get a new vte release out the door soon too?
You are da man, Kjartan.
Federico
___
desktop-devel-list mailing li
tir, 29,.11.2005 kl. 13.44 -0600, skrev Federico Mena Quintero:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:59 +, Padraig O'Briain wrote:
> > > Excellent! So is the patch on CVS now?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > I am currently unable to access CVS; have been working with tarballs.
>
> OK. What do you need to commit
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:22 -0500, Owen Williams wrote:
> ~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
> long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
> also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
> advertised these services with
~/Shared makes a lot of sense to me. ~/public_html has worked for a
long time for web servers, and OSX uses a similar scheme (~/Public and
also ~/Public/Drop Box for write-only). If GNOME automatically
advertised these services with Bonjour, then we'd really have something
cool.
owen
On Tue, 2
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:59 +, Padraig O'Briain wrote:
> > Excellent! So is the patch on CVS now?
>
> No.
>
> I am currently unable to access CVS; have been working with tarballs.
OK. What do you need to commit it? (Is "unable to access" a transient
problem?)
Federico
tis 2005-11-29 klockan 16:06 +0100 skrev Alexander Larsson:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > >> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> > >> [1], because there was a lack of
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:38 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:16 +, Padraig O'Briain wrote:
> > Our accessibility QA guys have tested these changes and find that they
> > do not impact the accessibility of gnome-terminal.
> >
> > My reading of the vte code was tha
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:16 +, Padraig O'Briain wrote:
> Our accessibility QA guys have tested these changes and find that they
> do not impact the accessibility of gnome-terminal.
>
> My reading of the vte code was that these signals were being emitted too
> often. The signal will now be emit
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> >> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
> >> their files with other us
Ross Burton wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:37 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
I'd vote for having all actions in an 'Actions' submenu.
Why? That forces them to be special, which they are not to the user.
As they'll only appear in the context menus for the items for which it
is relevant,
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:37 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> I'd vote for having all actions in an 'Actions' submenu.
Why? That forces them to be special, which they are not to the user.
As they'll only appear in the context menus for the items for which it
is relevant, I don't think hiding them in a
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 13:47 +0100, RUAUDEL Frédéric wrote:
> Ross Burton wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 13:08 +0100, RUAUDEL Frédéric wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I would like to propose Nautilus-actions for inclusion in the next
> >>release of the Gnome Desktop 2.14.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'd love to
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
>> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
>> their files with other users on the network, via the webdav protocol
>> (using apache).
>
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> So, during 2.9/2.10, gnome-user-share was not accepted as a new module
> [1], because there was a lack of consensus. It allowed users to share
> their files with other users on the network, via the webdav protocol
> (using apache).
>
> As
Our accessibility QA guys have tested these changes and find that they
do not impact the accessibility of gnome-terminal.
My reading of the vte code was that these signals were being emitted too
often. The signal will now be emitted once for every time
vte_terminal_process_incoming rather than at
17 matches
Mail list logo
