Re: 3.12 feature: polari

Hallo Allan I meant in general, not just GNOME. My point was that a IRC client engine must be a pretty generic thing by now (old and polular tech etc.), so I would hate to have to help translate yet another one. But as Bastien already explained, the engine would be telepathy, so no worries in that

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:01 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:45 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > The same as it does now for XChat or some other IRC client? > > Fair enough. If it's just another IRC client and isn't attempting to be > more, and isn't a core app, that makes sen

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On 11/10/13 08:01 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > It is *broadly* true that IRC tends to match the description you give > for it above, I grant you. Although not 100% so, and for other protocols > like XMPP it's even less clear that they can fit cleanly into one camp > or the other. For example some p

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:45 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > The same as it does now for XChat or some other IRC client? Fair enough. If it's just another IRC client and isn't attempting to be more, and isn't a core app, that makes sense. I was confused because people seemed to be suggesting that it

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

David Woodhouse wrote: ... > What, *exactly*, does the user's decision-making process look like, when > she wants to communicate and has to choose which tool to use for it? ... The same as it does now for XChat or some other IRC client? Allan ___ deskt

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:08:11PM +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Olav Vitters wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: > >> Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs > >> have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

Olav Vitters wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: >> Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs >> have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. >> It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm conf

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 12:28 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > IRC: > * You tend to join channels, not conversations. > * Individuals tend to be on a high number of channels simultaneously. > * Channels often have a high number of people in them. > * Your interest in a channel tends remain the same o

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, Florian Müllner wrote: > Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Tentative designs > have been around for a while, but hacking only started around Guadec. > It is obviously not end-user ready at that point, but I'm confident > that it can be in

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

Quoting Allan Day : David Woodhouse wrote: The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many "always on" channels vs. active participation in a smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

David Woodhouse wrote: >> The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive >> presence in many "always on" channels vs. active participation in a >> smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't >> support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

Quoting Alexandre Franke : On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: So this would be a replacement for Empathy? Only for multi user chatrooms. Is this still clearly separable? What starts as a 1:1 conversation in most instances nowadays can just 'invite' another user to

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:18 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive > presence in many "always on" channels vs. active participation in a > smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't > support both with the same UI (I know,

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:24 +0100, Nick Glynn wrote: > What's the new shiny feature for this over the more established > players? The UI's integrated with GNOME 3 (and not awful) and it's maintained. Which makes it (or rather, will make it) a better option than at least X-Chat, XChat-GNOME, and he

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On 11/10/13 10:25, Ross Burton wrote: > On 11 October 2013 10:21, David Woodhouse > wrote: > > > Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it > > for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there > > some limitat

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

What's the new shiny feature for this over the more established players? I saw on the notes it mentioned about missed messages and multiple channels - will there be a gnome hosted service that proxies the messages so they're available on reconnect as that would be fncy :D On 11 Oct 2013 11:19,

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

David Woodhouse wrote: >> Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or >> eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. > > That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive presence in many "always on" channe

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:39 +0100, Nick Glynn wrote: > So there's going to be Empathy, Chat and Polari? Don't forget that some stuff appears in a notification pop-up instead, so that's a fourth option. :) And then there's a *separate* tool I have to fire up to check whether a given account is act

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

So there's going to be Empathy, Chat and Polari? Each with a different use-case? Maybe taking the lead from Google on their Hangouts for Everything (including MMS and SMS) might be a better route? Happy to help tho - Nick On 11 Oct 2013 10:35, "David Woodhouse" wrote: > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 1

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:25 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or > eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM. That seems like confusing balkanisation to me. So if I'm having a conversation in an IRC channel with someone, and we decide

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

I think Chat will replace Empathy. See https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Chat and https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-chat. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Alexandre Franke wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Florian Müllner wrote: >> Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNO

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > So this would be a replacement for Empathy? Only for multi user chatrooms. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/l

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On 11 October 2013 10:21, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it > > for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there > > some limitation somewhere that makes it only suitable for IRC? > > So this would be a replacemen

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Florian Müllner wrote: > > Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. > > Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it > for named rooms on any protocol, like XMP

Re: 3.12 feature: polari

Hi, On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Florian Müllner wrote: > Polari is a simple IRC client designed for GNOME 3. Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there some limitation somewhere that makes it onl