2009/11/10 Rodrigo Moya :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
>> dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
>>
> wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
> sen
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:05 -0800, Dylan McCall wrote:
> > So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
> > 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
> > If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
> > gnome-control-center
On 11/10/2009 10:58 PM, Guillaume Desmottes wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
I think the biggest problem in this sto
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
> would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
I do share your concerns.
I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but
t
On Tue, 10.11.09 21:58, Rodrigo Moya (rodr...@gnome-db.org) wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> > Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
> > dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
> >
> wow, I just googled, and yeah
> So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
> 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
> If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
> gnome-control-center! :)
On that topic, it strikes me as fairly logical to mix a n
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
> dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
>
wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
sending Lennart to an empty island wit
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:41 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
>
> I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and also
> I want to become one of significant contributors, but first
> I do not know how many developers GNOME have and its
> responsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes,
> e
Hmm.
This seems to turn into a flamewar with personal attacks.
Don't like that.
The Code of Conduct at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct states
"Assume people mean well", and while we disagree on decisions itself
and/or their parameters (where, how and when it was discussed, decided
and announce
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > I would like to know if I'm t
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:03 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
> > sure what else we can do.
>
> Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as "GNOME Art
> team" (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised
> concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was made,
> they are being treated like children.
The developer is in charge of the project, stop t
Le 10/11/2009 18:18, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
It is quite simple : this change affe
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> >> Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> >
> >> It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inksca
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009, à 12:02 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat
>
> There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/
Matthias, this is not a fair answer. It's a fact tha
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:48 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>
> > Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> > months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> > give for something so easily fixable.
>
> The issue here is too few people are runn
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat
There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without an
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 16:36 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
>
> > It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
> > was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) w
> Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
> months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
> give for something so easily fixable.
4 months isn't a single GNOME release cycle. How would they get
end-user feedback?
What about GNOME software ven
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
> was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any
> kind of prior notification to be able t
Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
> to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
+1
Stef
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/list
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of ico
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens
>>> wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accept
2009/11/10 Andre Klapper :
> Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
>> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
>> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
>> deal with community.
>
> Thanks for being the true an
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>>> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
>>> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting
> the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add
> features to gTweakUI or write their own.
I'm aware of gconf-editor. But saying a user has to go mess with the
keys is pretty much a dumping ground
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:39 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> Except ~5 devs,
I really don't think making some imaginary stats up is going to help the
d
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
> will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
> deal with community.
Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community.
Mayb
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:36 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> > changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> > achieved with status quo.
> >
> > Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling a
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens
> > wrote:
> >> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> >> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
> Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
> some study about impact of this decision.
This has all been posted on this list already and repeating doesn't make
sense. Search the archives, please.
an
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:08 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually do whatever
> you want, but it's great to see you asking :-)
I want to make sure I am walking in the defined paths. :)
> As far as I can tell, this seems reasonable and it could even
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
>> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
>> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
>
> Um, it doesn
2009/11/10 Bastien Nocera :
> The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
> on how to get the icons back.
>
Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
some study about impact of this decision. And I agree with rest that
asking people to mess
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
> settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
> Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it b
General anger is not something which need to be translated.I, for example, want
all best to GNOME and to this community.But, as far as I could see, some things
go in wrong way andI just would like to point on that.
I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and alsoI want to become one
o
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:51 +, John Carr wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor
> wrote:
> One option is that some of this code could be merged into tracker
> itself, if it is deemed useful, along with exposing
> TrackerSparqlBuilder (which might be internal atm? can't remembe
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > > there was an icon overlo
> I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> achieved with status quo.
>
> Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> it's hard to make a case for reverting this change
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > > that shows that having none at all i
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > usage has slowed down be
Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > usage has slowed down because I now have to read everythin
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:46 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > > > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > > > option through the appearance cap
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> being able to rely on
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:05 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> I'd love to get comments from gthumb/eog people about this.
>
> Also, what features of GtkImageView do you use? Should some of those
> live in some way in gtk+?
I found a discussion with the EoG folks from a couple years ago.
Sounded like t
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > > option through the appearance capplet.
> >
> > I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> > It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> > option through the appearance capplet.
>
> I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jud Craft wrote:
>> It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
>> option through the appearance capplet.
>
> I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
> the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, si
> It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
> option through the appearance capplet.
I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
Interface options mentioned above have been remove
Hi Pierre-Luc,
Le mardi 27 octobre 2009, à 11:03 -0400, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am slightly late for this but we'd like to add a dependency to
> libchamplain in the 0.6 cycle (which corresponds to 2.29/2.30
> timeframe).
Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus),
> but I miss being able to change the toolbar style. The 2.28
> text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under. Is that really
> such a forbidden use case?
It's not f
Hi,
Le dimanche 08 novembre 2009, à 02:16 -0500, Matthew Barnes a écrit :
> I'd like to use Björn Lindqvist's GtkImageView widget [1] in Evolution
> for displaying image attachments inline.
>
> Evolution has been displaying image attachments inline on its own for
> ages, but GtkImageView does it
> you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that
> is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed.
Not sure I understand the discussion here. GNOME -had- UI to tweak
this option, and suddenly decided not to support configuring it in the
main desktop.
I a
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor wrote:
> Iain wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can
>>> immediately connect a signal to and get informed when something gets
>>> added, removed and ch
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
> I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
> need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
> icons'
> or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
> community is not able to
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
> I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
> need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
> icons'
> or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
> community is not able to
I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basicallyneed one
quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons'or 'we don't want
them'. Latter could be default if you like. If thiscommunity is not able to
implement this simple thing that means thatsomething is going
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
> > importance preferences.
> >
> > The Appearance capplet includes three sections. "Background" is probably
> > most used, "Font" is of high importance (for accessi
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:08 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +010
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > > So if you agree/disagree with th
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > > I would like to know if I'm t
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:24 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
> > I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
> > to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
> > application?
>
> A tweak
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 19:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 17:57 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 18:53 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 09:28 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>> Surely apps should ship pre
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> > So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> > I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
>
> Well, I'll repeat what I said on t
Iain wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
>> Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can
>> immediately connect a signal to and get informed when something gets
>> added, removed and changed.
>>
>> http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/Documentation/Si
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
> I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
> to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
> application?
A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
importance pre
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
> I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in
I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a
tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application?
I don't really see why we should disperse our efforts in two applications
with the same purpose and it only make things more confusing for the users
On N
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
> 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
> 2) Icons got removed from menus.
> 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
>
> 1 and 2 were stil
+1
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit :
> I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that
> developers should enable in Appearance menu some configuration
> options regarding this issue.
>
>
> It is not so hard to implement.
>
>
> Uros
>
>
> --
I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is thatdevelopers should
enable in Appearance menu some configurationoptions regarding this issue.
It is not so hard to implement.
Uros
---
"Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
is primar
Hi,
In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
2) Icons got removed from menus.
3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was
not possible to chan
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 16:03 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 06.11.09 20:22, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > There is one problem with POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED. If you do it on a file
> > the kernel will drop it from its caches. This is generally what you want
> > if you jus
74 matches
Mail list logo
