Re: New lockscreen

Il 10/01/2013 21:57, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto: [...] disclaimer: i am not the maintainer of this component. i have contributed some minor things to its development. however, i'm obviously vested in the workspace in general. reverting is not going to happen at this point. but what i will do is s

Re: Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown

On 4 January 2013 10:31, David Faure wrote: > The plan seems OK, except for the very last step, "final shutdown". > > Please keep svn.kde.org around, readonly. > [...] so if we could just keep a readonly svn > around (surely this shouldn't require much maintainance), it would be useful > for arche

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:14:37PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > We are not talking about the same things. We have three parts here: > * locking of screen (no keyboard, no mouse) > * not exposing screen content > * unlock dialog > > to me the lock screen is "locking the screen plus not exposing t

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 13:49:00 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:23:04PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately > > > > > from > > > > > th

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:23:04PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from > > > > the > > > > screensaver. > > And no, the lock screen was not running in the scr

Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:31:16PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > as long as we keep in mind that ends do not justify means. this was NOT the > way to affect this result. > there are better ways of accomplishing the intended result, and we should > practice them. that's all i'm trying to get acro

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 12:52:04 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from > > > the > > > screensaver. > > > > no, it wasn't. The lock screen had been implemented inside

Re: New lockscreen

Em Friday 11 January 2013, Martin Sandsmark escreveu: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:32:38AM +0100, Marco Martin wrote: > > 311188 since i don't have a a multiscreen setup at the moment > > Me neither, unfortunately. :( > > > difference between 312427 and 311033 (but then he confirmed that he had >

Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the > > screensaver. > no, it wasn't. The lock screen had been implemented inside the screen savers. > Yes blank screen was just another kind of screensavers.

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:01:58 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:57:30PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > reverting is not going to happen at this point. > > Fair point, as it now seems to both have maintainers aware of its bugzilla > component and is getting its bugs fixe

Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 11:40:07 Yuri Chornoivan wrote: > Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:28:22 +0200 було написано Martin Gräßlin > > : > > But the discussion again shows that just removing it completely and tell > > people to use XSS if they want screen savers would have been the right > > choice. > > Hi,

Re: Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 10:47:40 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security? > > Nothing, right. > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from t

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 of January 2013 10:28:22 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > the implementation has been kept there AFAIK because people complain that we > wanted to remove it. It would be nice if the people who want to have the > old screen savers would step up to support the maintenance. Yes it would > have bee

Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:28:22 +0200 було написано Martin Gräßlin : But the discussion again shows that just removing it completely and tell people to use XSS if they want screen savers would have been the right choice. Hi, Just to be sure, does that mean that all KDE translation for kdeartwor

Re: Review Request: Show larger icon in pager when the window rect is big enough

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108340/#review25210 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Luís Gabriel Lima On Jan. 11, 2013, 1:2

Review Request: Show larger icon in pager when the window rect is big enough

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108340/ --- Review request for kde-workspace and Luís Gabriel Lima. Description --

Re: Review Request: fix 234407 - set minimum width for system settings icon view

> On Jan. 10, 2013, 11:47 p.m., Chao Feng wrote: > > Screenshot: chinese after change > > > > > > Others looks good, I still think here it looks strange. Increase to 7 > > characters? Increase to 7 characters will only make 8 the number of characters in the

Re: Review Request: fix 234407 - set minimum width for system settings icon view

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108328/#review25205 --- Screenshot: chinese after change

Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:50:53AM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > "an animated screen saver" is not the only answer. "blank the screen" works > just as well, probably even better from a power consumption point of view. > blanking the screen is still supported :) Some people care more about aeste

Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:32:38AM +0100, Marco Martin wrote: > 311188 since i don't have a a multiscreen setup at the moment Me neither, unfortunately. :( > difference between 312427 and 311033 (but then he confirmed that he had > xscreensaver enabled as well so they're actually duplicates) Th

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:28:22 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove > > > the > > > feature. The use

Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security? > Nothing, right. Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the screensaver. > Btw. we are not the only ones who go the way of

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2013 09:28:19 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > > Well, the old one managed to be both, so IMHO if we remove features it is > > a regression (though which ones are you talking about?). > > no, removing features is not a regression. It

Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013, Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:46:11PM +0100, Marco Martin wrote: > > 311571 and 312427 should be fixed now > > Thanks! > > > some bugs seems easy, some i can'r reproduce them at all. > > Which ones can't you reproduce? I can look at them this eve

Re: Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove > > the > > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did > > you last

Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did you > last have a screen which needs to be saved? For background reading I > re

Re: New lockscreen

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:57:30PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > reverting is not going to happen at this point. Fair point, as it now seems to both have maintainers aware of its bugzilla component and is getting its bugs fixed. I really like the new screenlocker, both the architecture (one less

Re: Re: New lockscreen

On Friday 11 January 2013 09:28:19 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > Well, the old one managed to be both, so IMHO if we remove features it is a > regression (though which ones are you talking about?). no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the feature. The use case for sc

Re: Review Request: Rework fix for bug 279675 so that the new mimetype is used by KRun too.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108277/#review25229 --- This review has been submitted with commit 99175ed16914d4a1e10

Re: New lockscreen

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:46:11PM +0100, Marco Martin wrote: > 311571 and 312427 should be fixed now Thanks! > some bugs seems easy, some i can'r reproduce them at all. Which ones can't you reproduce? I can look at them this evening. > however not all of those are valid i think (the concept