Maybe not directly related, but will gtjk+ gain the animation capabilities
of Clutter (via merging with Clutter or layering on top of Clutter), such
that gtk+ widgets can behave like Clutter actors?
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> Here are my thoughts about what we can ac
Toggle buttons and the switch widget both suffer usability problems for me.
The visual look of a button represents an action to be performed in my
mind, perhaps why it was referred to it as a soft-action? So when a button
is stateful it can create ambiguity depending on the text of the button.
The
On 08/04/2012 05:54 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>
>> the patch in attachment 217892 looks okay - but what I'd like to see:
>>
>> a) bisecting to see what commit broke this;
>> b) a test case for the TreeView test suite, to ensure we don't re
Here are my thoughts about what we can achieve between now and 3.6:
- Fix animations (make spinners spin again): Benjamin is working on this
- Fix state propagation (the notorious grayed-out labels): Benjamin is
working on this
- Review and merge Owen's animation / paint clock work: Owen is going
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> the patch in attachment 217892 looks okay - but what I'd like to see:
>
> a) bisecting to see what commit broke this;
> b) a test case for the TreeView test suite, to ensure we don't regress again;
> c) a patch done using git format-patch o
hi;
On 4 August 2012 22:07, John Lindgren wrote:
>> John, would you be so kind to look at this? that would be stellar.
>
> I can write a test case and do a bisect, I think. Are there any
> instructions around as to how the test case should be encapsulated
> (stand-alone program, C function)?
gr
On 08/04/2012 04:58 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi John;
(snip)
> I left a comment in bug 671939, but I can also repeat it here.
>
> the patch in attachment 217892 looks okay - but what I'd like to see:
>
> a) bisecting to see what commit broke this;
> b) a test case for the TreeView test suite,
hi John;
On 4 August 2012 21:43, John Lindgren wrote:
> About a month ago I sent a patch to the bug tracker to fix a problem
> where GtkTreeView would emit signals, thereby executing user code,
> during its destroy cycle. This is a potentially serious problem as the
> state of the GtkTreeView is
Hi,
About a month ago I sent a patch to the bug tracker to fix a problem
where GtkTreeView would emit signals, thereby executing user code,
during its destroy cycle. This is a potentially serious problem as the
state of the GtkTreeView is more or less undefined as it is being destroyed.
One Andr
>
> === 6. OSK widget context provider (e.g. search vs open vs go...) ===
> Matthias said there was a patch floating around for that. I looked in the
> bugs with patches attached in bugzilla but could not find it. If someone
> knows where it is would be great.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> one implies a "soft" action (GtkToggleButton), whereas the other
> implies something similar of a hardware switch (GtkSwitch).
As every user knows, widgets relay wishes to magic pixies. I wonder if
that is soft or hard action, may
hi;
On 4 August 2012 15:18, Morten Welinder wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>
>>> GtkSwitch bugs me. It really should just have been a styling of the toggle
>>> button since it performs the same function with a different look.
>>
>> it does not "perform the same
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>> GtkSwitch bugs me. It really should just have been a styling of the toggle
>> button since it performs the same function with a different look.
>
> it does not "perform the same action".
That is a baseless assertion. Of course it does.
hi;
On 3 August 2012 15:24, Pavel Holejsovsky wrote:
> On 7/29/2012 12:09 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> I've put patches for deprecating the gdk threading api at
>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680754
>> Review appreciated.
>>
>
> I'd like to bring up the issue of how language bi
The good thing is that we have enough time to work this out - GTK+ 4
will not appear overnight.
In the meantime, here are some hints for how to deal with fallout from
the deprecation of GDK_THREADS_ENTER/LEAVE in the short term:
1. There's no point anymore in the macro wrappers
GDK_THREADS_ENTER/
hi;
On 4 August 2012 14:14, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> and yet another case of "i'm so nervous and irritated by criticism of our
> design decisions that i'll resort to calling people stupid" ...
design has nothing to do with it,
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
[ ... ]
and yet another case of "i'm so nervous and irritated by criticism of our
design decisions that i'll resort to calling people stupid" ...
and yet another case of "I don't know that, so I'll make stuff up".
>
> On 2 August 2012 14:1
On Fri 03 Aug 2012 16:24, Pavel Holejsovsky
writes:
> I'd like to bring up the issue of how language bindings should cope with
> this.
It is indeed pretty nasty, especially if you got used to a solution like
the java-gnome one.
> One way to solve this would be to put the burden on the bindings
hi;
On 4 August 2012 00:05, Michael Natterer wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:52 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote:
>> GtkSwitch bugs me. It really should just have been a styling of the toggle
>> button since it performs the same function with a different look. But no,
>> it is currently a totally
hi;
and yet another case of "I don't know that, so I'll make stuff up".
On 2 August 2012 14:11, Paul Davis wrote:
>> === 3. SpinButton ===
>> [ ... ]
>
>
>>
>> Another option is introducing a complete new widget targeted at touch
>> usage (similar to the one in iOS Garageband) [4] which Carlos
hi;
once again, from the department of "I didn't bother to ask, so I'll
make stuff up"...
On 2 August 2012 13:52, Morten Welinder wrote:
>> === 4. Which GTK+ widgets break with touch ===
>> The SpinButton item from above is one example of those.
>
> I really hope the solution is neither "remove
21 matches
Mail list logo
