Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
> So I agree breaking things is bad, and in general we should all try and play
> nice and communicate about upcoming changes. Which is exactly what Matthew
> has done by starting this very thread. Good for him.
And, to be honest, I think a hack that just ret
- "Matthew Garrett" wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:48:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > What changes are needed to the desktop?
> >
> > The big problem we've been facing integrating new features of core
> system
> > services into KDE so far was lack of docum
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:01:45PM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Isn't there "Save As..." for saving it? If not, I smell a bug
> report. When I'm working over sshfs and the network goes down,
> my editor still works with the file, the actual save is what
> fails.
It depends on what resources yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:31:20AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> IMHO DeviceKit should just unmount it itself and notify the
desktop that it
>> has unmounted the device so the desktop can report it (or
ignore it if it
>>
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:37:16AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I think the words you have choosen here are too strong. There is no
>> current policy or requirement that requires that.
>
>And that's a big problem which needs fixing. Though I'd argue that it's just
>common sense
On 06/30/2009 08:14 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
how common are docking stations in practice?
(as opposed to port extenders)
Majority of our laptop users have them. Would be great to have them
supported.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA D
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 16:46 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Can't the desktop inform the kernel if it can handle the
> interaction?
> > If not, you can just fallback to the current behavior.
>
> Somewhat, but you then hit issues like fast user switching potentially
> involving desktops that supp
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:31:20AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> IMHO DeviceKit should just unmount it itself and notify the desktop that it
> has unmounted the device so the desktop can report it (or ignore it if it
> doesn't know about the event). I don't see why we need to add code to every
> de
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So, what you'll get is a notification that a block device has requested
> removal along with a notification that a dock device is being undocked.
> What you do with the block device is up to you, but in general you'll
> want to unmount it.
IMHO DeviceKit should just unmoun
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I think the words you have choosen here are too strong. There is no
> current policy or requirement that requires that.
And that's a big problem which needs fixing. Though I'd argue that it's just
common sense and shouldn't need a policy in the first place. Just breaking
other
Darn straight. I stand corrected.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 13:42 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
>
>> Fedora's deployment of that work, however, is another matter. Does
>> Fedora offer a variety of environments with a set of common features
>> and infr
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 13:42 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
> Fedora's deployment of that work, however, is another matter. Does
> Fedora offer a variety of environments with a set of common features
> and infrastructure, or is it one functional desktop and one "use at
> your own risk" desktop?
Strictly
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:48:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> You have to tell us what we need to change in KDE and give us the necessary
>> time to adapt, even if it means you have to wait for Fedora 13 to push this
>> change.
>
> Hm. S
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:48:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Once this code is ready I'd like to change the kernel defaults to allow
>> this. The problem is that this will cause a reduction in functionality
>> for desktops that don't have this integration. How should thi
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:48:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I've been working with David Zeuthen to flesh out proper desktop support
> > for this, and we're now at the point where there's not a great deal of
> > code to write to get this working cleanly. Unfortunately
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've been working with David Zeuthen to flesh out proper desktop support
> for this, and we're now at the point where there's not a great deal of
> code to write to get this working cleanly. Unfortunately this requires a
> certain level of integration between the kernel and
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:28:24AM -0400, Dimi Paun wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Once this code is ready I'd like to change the kernel defaults to
> > allow this. The problem is that this will cause a reduction in
> > functionality for desktops that don't h
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Once this code is ready I'd like to change the kernel defaults to
> allow this. The problem is that this will cause a reduction in
> functionality for desktops that don't have this integration. How
> should this kind of situation be handle
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:14:52AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> how common are docking stations in practice?
> (as opposed to port extenders)
I'm using the kernel definition here - that is, a dock is any ACPI
device that may request a removal via ACPI notifications and requires
ACPI methods
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> how common are docking stations in practice?
> (as opposed to port extenders)
>
> --
> Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
> visit http://www.lesswatts.org
>
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:56:44 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ACPI docking stations are mildly complicated creatures that require
> the OS to handle part of the undocking process. We're currently doing
> this entirely within the kernel, but this has the significant
> downside that there's no way to
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:32:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/30/2009 07:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I've been working with David Zeuthen to flesh out proper desktop support
> > for this, and we're now at the point where there's not a great deal of
> > code to write to get this wo
On 06/30/2009 07:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ACPI docking stations are mildly complicated creatures that require the
> OS to handle part of the undocking process. We're currently doing this
> entirely within the kernel, but this has the significant downside that
> there's no way to handle cl
23 matches
Mail list logo
