On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Seif Lotfy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
>> >
>> >> Which brings us to the matter of openness: the res
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Seif Lotfy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
> >
> >> Which brings us to the matter of openness: the results of everything
> >> the design team does ends up on the GNOME wiki u
Dammit forgot to telly you what (*) was.
I assume a gnome-design mailing list would be a source for trolls to show
up and make the signal to noise ratio high. I think then that if we make
the list open only to GNOME foundation members that might help the signal
to noise ratio better.
We want ac
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
>
> > Which brings us to the matter of openness: the results of everything
> > the design team does ends up on the GNOME wiki under
> > live.gnome.org/Design.
>
> I think people are more
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
>
>> Which brings us to the matter of openness: the results of everything
>> the design team does ends up on the GNOME wiki under
>> live.gnome.org/Design.
>
> I think people are more conc
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Florian Max wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Emily Gonyer wrote:
>
>> Then the design team ought to be more open about what exactly 'their'
>> vision for gnome is, as well as open to other ideas/concepts. Insisting on
>> doing things their way, while being
Sv, 2012-04-22 12:36 -0400, Shaun McCance rakstīja:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
>
> > Which brings us to the matter of openness: the results of everything
> > the design team does ends up on the GNOME wiki under
> > live.gnome.org/Design.
>
> I think people are more co
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Florian Max wrote:
>> In the end your history is scattered all over the place :P
>>
>> The logs are there and there is not common way to manage them. Having
>> a central log like Zeitgeist will allow you to develop policies and
>> blacklist for logging. Having hist
>
> In the end your history is scattered all over the place :P
>
> The logs are there and there is not common way to manage them. Having
> a central log like Zeitgeist will allow you to develop policies and
> blacklist for logging. Having history at a central location and having
> a central tool to
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 18:21 +0200, Florian Max wrote:
> Which brings us to the matter of openness: the results of everything
> the design team does ends up on the GNOME wiki under
> live.gnome.org/Design.
I think people are more concerned about being able to have input
on the process, not on seei
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Emily Gonyer wrote:
> Then the design team ought to be more open about what exactly 'their'
> vision for gnome is, as well as open to other ideas/concepts. Insisting on
> doing things their way, while being extremely vague as to what exactly
> their way *is* is no
While this thread reflects a bit about some community observations on
how things are handled in GNOME, and i support such a discussion, I
find it a bit off-topic. Can we start a new thread discussing these
issues or so.
Let us stay on topic.
Can an applications use Zeitgeist for technical/optimiza
I agree with Florian here. It took me a bit of time to interact with
the design team but it is possible.
It is a very young team and extremely busy and overloaded. They are
welcoming for anyone to work with them on design and once you get
their attention they will help you integrate more. The best
On 22 April 2012 06:14, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Risk for the feature focus is that the external dependencies "rules" are
> forgotten. E.g. I noticed that gnome-boxes increased its libosinfo
> version requirement in 3.4.1. That's not so nice when distribution is in
> a version freeze.
Off-topic, Ubu
Then the design team ought to be more open about what exactly 'their'
vision for gnome is, as well as open to other ideas/concepts. Insisting on
doing things their way, while being extremely vague as to what exactly
their way *is* is not helpful to the rest of the community who is trying to
get stu
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Luis Medinas wrote:
> do you really want to start talking about what the community think about
> this ? Because if you want to start talking i recommend to see how many
> threads we have, specially on gnome-shell ml, about design decisions that
> makes the communi
Hi Olav,
Thanks a lot for clearing it up. This makes a lot of sense.
As I see it there is two ways to approach this:
1) Implement first then propose as an external dependency:The risk is
that implementation is done and GNOME decides the dependency is
unacceptable, thus rendering a couple of months
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 08:33:43PM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> What about you want to use a new technology but you don't want any new
> features but rather using this new external dependency will simpifiy things
> and making maintainance easier? I suppose that itself is the feature?
> Easier
18 matches
Mail list logo
