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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Thursday 10 January 2013 19:37:57 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The new lock screen has some more or less serious regressions, and doesn't
> seem to be maintained by anyone in particular (one of the regression bugs
> filed against it is from november, and I don't really see anyone in
> part
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 19:37:57 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> So, who is supposed maintain this new screenlocker? In its current state it
..
> Another alternative is to revert the replacement for KDE 4.10, and instead
disclaimer: i am not the maintainer of this component. i have contributed som
On Thursday 10 January 2013, Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The new lock screen has some more or less serious regressions, and doesn't
> seem to be maintained by anyone in particular (one of the regression bugs
> filed against it is from november, and I don't really see anyone in
> particular c
27 matches
Mail list logo
