> Matthias and I are currently making good progress at getting GVariant
> reviewed. Some parts of it are already ready to go. I have no reason
> to believe that progress won't continue to be made and I'm currently of
> the mindset that it will make it in time for this cycle.
I think we should co
Hi Andre
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:24 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Currently the (challening) plan is to move completely from gconf to
> dconf in the 2.31 cycle.
>
> If I get it right (probably not, so feel free to correct me), this
> requires GDbus, GVariant and GSettings to be included in a gli
Am Montag, den 12.10.2009, 11:27 -0400 schrieb Ryan Lortie:
> The main technical blocker on the inclusion of dconf is that it relies
> on a branch of glib that has not yet been merged to master. We have had
> a discussion at Boston Summit two days ago between myself, Matthias
> Clasen and David Ze
Am Montag, den 12.10.2009, 11:27 -0400 schrieb Ryan Lortie:
> dconf is a very conceptually simple key/value storage system with an
> implementation that makes it extremely efficient.
The GNOME release-team will soon decide about module inclusions for
GNOME 2.30.
To the GNOME developers:
If you ha
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 14:22 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >
> > How can you be sure of that? Any other plan involves first writing and
> > debugging a new set of software to support the gconf api on something
> > else, then maintaining
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 14:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
>
> > > So, I say, leave old apps using gconf alone, and leave the gconf storage
> > > alone too. It wor
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:53 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 14:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
> > So, I say, leave old apps using gconf alone, and leave the gconf storage
> > alone too. It works (to some degree) and will continue to work (to the
> > same degree)
Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 14:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson a écrit :
> There are two kinds of apps, those that use the gsettings API (and these
> should also avoid linking to gconf libs) and those that use the gconf
> API. Ideally we would like everyone to move to the GSettings API, but
> that will
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 19:27 +0100, Iain wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
> > For applications that need to do weird conversions where we can't extend
> > the tool to do this in a generic fashion we could just ship a special
> > tool with the application that li
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> For applications that need to do weird conversions where we can't extend
> the tool to do this in a generic fashion we could just ship a special
> tool with the application that links to gconf so that the normal app
> doesn't have to lin
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:38 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 14:23 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
> > > We want to both be able to read all keys as per the current user, and
> > > determine whether a gconf key really has been set or if it has inherited
> > > the default value
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
>
>
> Not providing a migration path will probably delay adoption of
> dconf/gsettings into Debian because Debian tries it's hardest to
> preserve user configuration, even during an update. There are long and
> scary scripts which can migrate gn
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 14:23 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:29 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 13:12 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> >> > Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on hi
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:29 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 13:12 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
>> > Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
>> > seriously: I think what we probabl
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:29 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 13:12 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
> > seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
> > move all the code fro
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> Seriously, though -- help in this regard would be very much appreciated.
> I have a whole lot of stuff on my plate right now.
Understood; I think the most important thing to figure out is the
framework and do some easy things like the backgro
2009/10/18 Jan Claeys :
> Op maandag 12-10-2009 om 11:27 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Ryan
> Lortie:
>> dconf is a very conceptually simple key/value storage system with an
>> implementation that makes it extremely efficient.
>
> Is there a way for dconf to tell me which configuration settings are
Op maandag 12-10-2009 om 11:27 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Ryan
Lortie:
> dconf is a very conceptually simple key/value storage system with an
> implementation that makes it extremely efficient.
Is there a way for dconf to tell me which configuration settings are
obsolete? (I want a way to lis
Op woensdag 14-10-2009 om 15:54 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Alan Cox:
> > - FS have much better support of tools which recover the data. Well -
> > you cannot edit by XML editor but both FAT and EXT2/3/4 have numerous
> > tools that recovers data - even less popular systems like reiserfs have
> >
Op woensdag 14-10-2009 om 13:07 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Colin
Walters:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Alberto Ruiz
> wrote:
> > Large deployments shouldn't mess with the local users' configuration.
> > Probably specialized backends for GSettings like an APOC or plain LDAP
> > one would
Op woensdag 14-10-2009 om 16:47 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Maciej
Piechotka:
> Hmm. AFAIK in some cases compressed XML files were better then
> designed binary formats in terms of disk-space efficiency.
Because in most cases binary formats aren't compressed.
But compression adds an additional
fr., 16.10.2009 kl. 09.37 -0600, skrev Tom Tromey:
> > "Ryan" == Ryan Lortie writes:
>
> Ryan> I personally think migration is less critical than a lot of people
> Ryan> think.
> Ryan> Here's why (for me at least):
> Ryan> - I often reinstall my distro when the new release comes out
> [...]
Hi,
Il giorno sab, 17/10/2009 alle 02.41 +0100, Sam Thursfield ha scritto:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Johannes wrote:
> > * It is definitly important to keep the user settings over the
> > transition. So at least any setting that is mentioned in a schema file
> > has to be migrated (other
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:13 +, Colin Walters wrote:
> So the question isn't "do we migrate or not", but "how much do we migrate".
Let pragmatism win the day :)
> -- Colin, who long ago wrote the first bits of those scripts, but if
> tasked with it this time would probably write them in somet
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Johannes wrote:
> * It is definitly important to keep the user settings over the
> transition. So at least any setting that is mentioned in a schema file
> has to be migrated (others are buggy, right?). I cannot say how to do
> this but I think it is possible.
>
>
Hi!
OK, lets face on our problems again:
* We want to get rid of gconf for 3.0 because we want
API/ABI-compatibility over the whole 3.0 cycle which can be long. Gconf
is (more or less) unmaintained at the moment. If we keep it for 3.0
things would likely get worse.
* It is definitly important to
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 18:19 +0100, Iain wrote:
> While not disagreeing with you on the need for migration
>
> > * A bunch of metadata related to synchronization that, if lost,
> > requires you to "start over", which an upgrading user might find to be
> > a hassle
> > * List of "pinned" notes that
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Iain wrote:
> While not disagreeing with you on the need for migration
>
>> * A bunch of metadata related to synchronization that, if lost,
>> requires you to "start over", which an upgrading user might find to be
>> a hassle
>> * List of "pinned" notes that alway
While not disagreeing with you on the need for migration
> * A bunch of metadata related to synchronization that, if lost,
> requires you to "start over", which an upgrading user might find to be
> a hassle
> * List of "pinned" notes that always show up in tomboy tray menu
> * Some keys used to de
2009/10/16 Josselin Mouette
> Therefore a possible, sane transition plan looks like the following.
> 1. A new, source-compatible (if possible binary-compatible, but
>that’s less critical) GConf library is written on top of
>GSettings. All applications using GConf start using i
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:07 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> - GConf (and GSettings) are not used to store "important" things like
> emails, bookmarks, contacts, cookies, passwords, ...
I wouldn't be this sure; passwords usually aren't stored there, but e.g.
mail accounts could be stored there,
> "Ryan" == Ryan Lortie writes:
Ryan> I personally think migration is less critical than a lot of people
Ryan> think.
Ryan> Here's why (for me at least):
Ryan> - I often reinstall my distro when the new release comes out
[...]
Ryan> - it never takes me more than a few minutes of fiddling
Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 13:12 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
> seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
> move all the code from gconf to dconf in one cycle (if possible)? Should
> apps implemen
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:15 +, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not providing a migration path will probably delay adoption of
> > dconf/gsettings into Debian because Debian tries it's hardest to
> > preserve user configuration, even during
There has to be migration - i can never remember all my evo account
settings and im sure in corporate environments it would be a major
source of technical call outs
If it were for only Gnome 3 then maybe an exception can be made but for
gnome 2.x, migration is critical IMO
jamie
On Fri, 2009-10
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
>
>
> Not providing a migration path will probably delay adoption of
> dconf/gsettings into Debian because Debian tries it's hardest to
> preserve user configuration, even during an update. There are long and
> scary scripts which can migrate gn
There are a number of difficulties if there is no proper migration of
end users.
- users often have forgotten the settings they made since they don't
often upgrade their systems.
(you as a developer is used to frequent update and things are
generally fresh in memory, that makes it easier)
- If
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:07 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> I personally think migration is less critical than a lot of people
> think.
Migration is important. An average user won't be too happy when they
update their distro and find all of their settings have disappeared. Any
arguments involving dev
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 07:35 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
> That doesn't fix anything; it just delays an identical migration.
Ya. I'm not particularly in favour of doing this either. It's just
theoretically possible :)
Cheers
___
desktop-devel-list m
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:34 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>> I think it makes sense to do the migration for all the apps at once.
>> Also, the migration from gconf can be done directly from dconf, the
>> first time it starts, or even it could be c
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 07:35 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:00 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> >> if dconf listens to changes in gconf, 3rd party apps would just need to
> >> link to glib/GSettings instead of libgconf, a
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:00 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>> if dconf listens to changes in gconf, 3rd party apps would just need to
>> link to glib/GSettings instead of libgconf, and their migration would be
>> done automatically, right?
>
> dcon
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:57 +0200, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > I think having GSettings merged in GLib is the blocker here for starting
> > ports of application to the new infrastructure, as it happened with GIO.
> > So the question about whether
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 17:04 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> So - at this point, I'd like to advertise FUSE gratuitously[1]; what
> with the ease of writing a FUSE filing-system, and the fact that we have
> a GVFS fuse mount already; it should be near-trivial to write a 'vi
> compatible' FUSE pl
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:22 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> How is reading binary data faster than reading text data?
> (note, I don't fight for 570 tiny XML files at all).
Using a binary file allows for the file to be mapped into the memory
space of all client processes and read from directly in an ef
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:00 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> if dconf listens to changes in gconf, 3rd party apps would just need to
> link to glib/GSettings instead of libgconf, and their migration would be
> done automatically, right?
dconf won't be made to listen to GConf. One alternative, though,
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:34 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> I think it makes sense to do the migration for all the apps at once.
> Also, the migration from gconf can be done directly from dconf, the
> first time it starts, or even it could be clever enough to synchronize
> changes from gconf every tim
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 19:22 -0400, Alex Launi wrote:
> How far away are mono/python bindings? Can I use raw dbus is there are
> not client helper libraries?
You can use raw DBus to interact with the dconf database -- there is a
DBus service included in the release.
For GSettings, it's not really
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:57 +0200, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> I think having GSettings merged in GLib is the blocker here for starting
> ports of application to the new infrastructure, as it happened with GIO.
> So the question about whether we should migrate all at once or not (for
> 2.30) depends on
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 10:54 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> No doubt. But ask that same question of sysadmins, and
> you'll probably get a different answer.
So - at this point, I'd like to advertise FUSE gratuitously[1]; what
with the ease of writing a FUSE filing-system, and the fact that
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:24 +0100, Ghee Teo wrote:
> Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:06 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/10/13 Rodrigo Moya :
> >>
> Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
> seriously: I think what we probably
Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:06 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
2009/10/13 Rodrigo Moya :
Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
move all the code from gconf to dconf in one
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:24 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 19:17 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > e-d-s stores the data in GConf, so it needs to be migrated indeed. Also,
> > even though the desktop-wide settings might be obsoleted
> > (/desktop/GNOME, for instance), apps still nee
> "Alberto" == Alberto Ruiz writes:
Alberto> Is there a need to convert user settings? I mean, we're talking
Alberto> about GNOME 3.0 here, most sensible data is stored via
Alberto> evolution-data-server, tracker, or other custom storage so the
Alberto> only difference would be appearance. I
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 19:17 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> e-d-s stores the data in GConf, so it needs to be migrated indeed. Also,
> even though the desktop-wide settings might be obsoleted
> (/desktop/GNOME, for instance), apps still need their /apps/$app
> configuration tree to be migrated, since
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:39 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 2009/10/14 Xavier Claessens :
> > Le lundi 12 octobre 2009 à 11:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> >> I'd like to propose the inclusion of dconf for GNOME 2.30 in the desktop
> >> release set.
> >
> > This is great news! I'm all in favor of dc
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:59 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> The important thing is the ability of an admin to easily copy a branch
> of config settings. Thats trivial in gconf and I use it for copying
> settings between machines (cp ~/.gconf/blah)
I disagree that it's trivial with cp. It's only po
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>
> Large deployments shouldn't mess with the local users' configuration.
> Probably specialized backends for GSettings like an APOC or plain LDAP
> one would be a much better approach to manage large deployments.
Maybe; I am personally really
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:51 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 2009/10/14 Shaun McCance :
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do you think have
> >> ever hand edited their configuration, what percentage do you think have
> >>
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 11:48 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:25 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 10:54 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do
2009/10/14 Shaun McCance :
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do you think have
>> ever hand edited their configuration, what percentage do you think have
>> ever used things like gconftool. For that matter what percentage
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:25 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 10:54 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do you think have
> > > ever hand edited their configuration, what
2009/10/12 Sriram Ramkrishna :
> You tell em, Vincent. I've been wanting to tell him No for years now.
> That said, Ryan, are you proposing this as a replacement for GConf? That
> wasn't particularly clear in your initial mail.
dconf is being proposed as a replacement for the gconf configuration
2009/10/14 Martin Meyer :
> It sounds like the backend for GSettings is somewhat pluggagle, at
> least on a per-platform basis. Can we make this configurable by the
> distro people at compile-time or runtime?
Exactly, in fact, there is already a windows registry backend
developed by a GSoC
> Here
2009/10/14 Alex Launi :
> How far away are mono/python bindings? Can I use raw dbus is there are not
> client helper libraries?
There is no work on that regard so far. GSettings will eventually be
proposed for inclusion in GLib so any glib/gobject binding should
include that API.
>
> --
> -- Alex
2009/10/14 Xavier Claessens :
> Le lundi 12 octobre 2009 à 11:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
>> I'd like to propose the inclusion of dconf for GNOME 2.30 in the desktop
>> release set.
>
> This is great news! I'm all in favor of dconf. Do you have plans to move
> to GNOME plateforme? IMO that real
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 10:54 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do you think have
> > ever hand edited their configuration, what percentage do you think have
> > ever used things like gconftool.
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Take 20,000 distro Gnome users, what percentage of them do you think have
> ever hand edited their configuration, what percentage do you think have
> ever used things like gconftool. For that matter what percentage of
> normal users do you think
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 15:54 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Sorry if I not made it clear - I'm against putting everything in binary
which does not mean that binary format is ultimately evil. Probably XML
is not the easiest format to parse.
I am still a bit 'scared' by idea of binary format unless it is ne
> - FS are usually implemented very carefully. They tend to be part of
> kernel. On the other hand desktop applications are designed much more
> 'speedy'. Sometimes application hangs (much more frequent then kernel
> locks IMHO), sometimes it crashes.
Desktop application software mostly sucks. I w
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 11:46 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> everyone asking for a plain text format (or even an XML format) for
> *storage* should be forced to get only that on their machines, but
> should also be barred from complaining why their boot process takes a
> minute instead of 10 seconds
add my thinking. The subject is 'module proposal: dconf'. So
can people please get a bit more ontopic?
I'd rather have people discuss readiness of NFS in dconf, endianness
issues in dconf or multiple session support.
If you want another backend for GSettings instead of dconf, or wa
2009/10/13 Javier Jardón :
> I've already created a page to track the progress and as a central
> place to get info and examples about the migration to dconf/gsettings
Is there a migration guide somewhere? I suspect a lot of heavy grunt
of the conversion could be written using a spatch script.
Ri
It sounds like the backend for GSettings is somewhat pluggagle, at
least on a per-platform basis. Can we make this configurable by the
distro people at compile-time or runtime?
Here's my thinking:
1) People may not like whatever storage mechanism is offered by dconf,
so options may be good.
2) S
Dne 14.10.2009 12:46, Emmanuele Bassi napsal(a):
> everyone asking for a plain text format (or even an XML format) for
> *storage* should be forced to get only that on their machines, but
> should also be barred from complaining why their boot process takes a
> minute instead of 10 seconds. and no:
Dne 14.10.2009 14:48, Dan Winship napsal(a):
> Sorry, I thought the silliness made it clear that I was not actually
> making that complaint,
Of course I knew that, that was just blatant hijacking of your post for
my nefarious purposes.
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplceplovi
On 10/14/2009 05:24 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 13.10.2009 22:42, Dan Winship napsal(a):
>> OMG ITS TEH WINDOWS REGISTRY!!!1!1II|! IF ANY APP WRITES A SINGLE BYTE
>> WRONG THEN ALL OF YOUR APPS WILL BREAK AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOG IN
>> ANY MORE
>
> +1 :)
>
> People who are not able to learn
> everyone asking for a plain text format (or even an XML format) for
> *storage* should be forced to get only that on their machines, but
> should also be barred from complaining why their boot process takes a
> minute instead of 10 seconds. and no: having plain text storage and
> adding a binary
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:06 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> 2009/10/13 Rodrigo Moya :
> >> Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
> >> seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
> >> move all the code from gconf to dconf in one cycle (if poss
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna
wrote:
> That said, Ryan, are you proposing this as a replacement for GConf? That
> wasn't particularly clear in your initial mail.
>
As I understand it, the replacement for GConf would be two-fold:
GSettings in glib (the interface, to be merge
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 11:46 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 11:24 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> > Dne 13.10.2009 22:42, Dan Winship napsal(a):
> > > OMG ITS TEH WINDOWS REGISTRY!!!1!1II|! IF ANY APP WRITES A SINGLE BYTE
> > > WRONG THEN ALL OF YOUR APPS WILL BREAK AND YOU WON'T B
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 11:24 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 13.10.2009 22:42, Dan Winship napsal(a):
> > OMG ITS TEH WINDOWS REGISTRY!!!1!1II|! IF ANY APP WRITES A SINGLE BYTE
> > WRONG THEN ALL OF YOUR APPS WILL BREAK AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOG IN
> > ANY MORE
>
> +1 :)
>
> People who are not
Dne 14.10.2009 11:35, Vivien Malerba napsal(a):
> How about using an SQLite database for dconf as a local store. Sure it
> won't be as fast as a mapped file but SQLite is pretty fast if indexes
> are correctly constructed, and it's hard to corrupt.
No the focus of my hatred are binary configuratio
2009/10/14 Matěj Cepl :
> Dne 13.10.2009 22:42, Dan Winship napsal(a):
>> OMG ITS TEH WINDOWS REGISTRY!!!1!1II|! IF ANY APP WRITES A SINGLE BYTE
>> WRONG THEN ALL OF YOUR APPS WILL BREAK AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOG IN
>> ANY MORE
>
> +1 :)
>
> People who are not able to learn from history are doom
Dne 13.10.2009 22:42, Dan Winship napsal(a):
> OMG ITS TEH WINDOWS REGISTRY!!!1!1II|! IF ANY APP WRITES A SINGLE BYTE
> WRONG THEN ALL OF YOUR APPS WILL BREAK AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOG IN
> ANY MORE
+1 :)
People who are not able to learn from history are doomed to live through
it again.
http
Le lundi 12 octobre 2009 à 11:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> I'd like to propose the inclusion of dconf for GNOME 2.30 in the desktop
> release set.
This is great news! I'm all in favor of dconf. Do you have plans to move
to GNOME plateforme? IMO that really should replace gconf for GNOME3,
thi
Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 à 23:06 +0200, Luca Ferretti a écrit :
> 2009/10/13 Rodrigo Moya :
> >> Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
> >> seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
> >> move all the code from gconf to dconf in one cycle
You tell em, Vincent. I've been wanting to tell him No for years now.
That said, Ryan, are you proposing this as a replacement for GConf? That
wasn't particularly clear in your initial mail.
sri
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le lundi 12 octobre 2009, à 11:27 -0400, Ry
How far away are mono/python bindings? Can I use raw dbus is there are not
client helper libraries?
--
-- Alex Launi
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
2009/10/13 Rodrigo Moya :
>> Ryan is a bit sad to not get feedback on his proposal, so a bit more
>> seriously: I think what we probably need is a migration plan. Should we
>> move all the code from gconf to dconf in one cycle (if possible)? Should
>> apps implement migration for the data in gconf?
On 10/13/2009 10:17 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>> login / app launch across tens of tiny files, and that the authoritative
>> data store is somewhat human readable ? :-)
>
> "yes" and "yes" (but probably you meant "no").
>
> Data is in a single file, and humans can read it with the right tools.
> 'ca
2009/10/13 Pierre Wieser :
> Hi
>
> Just my 10cents piece, as I'm afraid I'm not really involved
> in the decision.
>
> As a new maintainer - about six month on nautilus-actions -
> I've already had to migrate from Gvfs to GIO, from libglade
> to GtkBuilder, and, obviously, soon from GConf to dconf
> - "Rodrigo Moya" wrote:
> > >
> > you are right, but this is not usual, it is just that you joined
> > GNOME development in the middle of the GNOME 2.x to 3.x
> > transition :) Once all these libs are settled down, things should
> > go back to normal
>
> Well, Rodrigo, "j'en accepte l'augu
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 17:18 +0200, Pierre Wieser wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just my 10cents piece, as I'm afraid I'm not really involved
> in the decision.
>
> As a new maintainer - about six month on nautilus-actions -
> I've already had to migrate from Gvfs to GIO, from libglade
> to GtkBuilder, and, obvi
Ryan Lortie wrote:
> dconf is a very conceptually simple key/value storage system with an
> implementation that makes it extremely efficient. There have been 3
> tarball releases so far: 0.1, 0.1.1, 0.2. More will be following in the
> coming weeks and months.
>
>
> I'd like to propose the incl
Hi
Just my 10cents piece, as I'm afraid I'm not really involved
in the decision.
As a new maintainer - about six month on nautilus-actions -
I've already had to migrate from Gvfs to GIO, from libglade
to GtkBuilder, and, obviously, soon from GConf to dconf.
In GIO and in GtkBuilder, I had to suf
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:59 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> In terms of migration, is there any reason why we cannot re-implement
> most of the gconf client library layered on top of dconf - with
> presumably some automagic schema conversion in place of the
> gconftool-2 --makefile-foo-install-
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mardi 13 octobre 2009, à 00:16 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo a écrit :
El lun, 12-10-2009 a las 11:33 -0400, Ryan Lortie escribió:
Hello
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:30 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 12 octobre 2009, à 11:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 11:27 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> dconf brings in no new external dependencies [except, see below about
> glib]. There is also a separate module, 'dconf-editor', however, that
> uses Vala.
In terms of migration, is there any reason why we cannot re-implement
most of
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 07:54 -0400, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:12 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >> Le mardi 13 octobre 2009, à 00:16 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo a écrit :
> >> > El lun, 12-10-2009 a las 11:33 -0400, Ry
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
