El 02/06/16 a las 12:50, Walter Bender escribió: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Silva > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Not every time you do an activity are you doing work worth > committing. For instance I work with a lot of terminals, that I > reuse and there's no point in committing terminal sessions. > > So imho Sugar should not force you to commit if you don't want to. > > > We had long ago talked about letting some activities opt out. > Regardless, adding the commit message back with an opt-out button is > fine with me, but I still don't understand what problem we are solving. Good question. I hope Tony can answer that. If I understood him correctly he's trying to avoid having many journal objects currently having exactly the same name thus being indistinguishable from each other.
> If I understand it, Tony also wants to circumvent the relaunch last > instance by default as well. In the case of your Terminal example, it > would mean you'd have Terminal instances in your Journal for each time > you used the Terminal unless you too the time to go to the Journal and > search for a previous instance. I think that makes the spam problem > worse, not better. I tend to agree with you on that one. Tony makes a valid point that Sugar, more often than not, is used by many learners who may not expect to open somebody else's work by default. Just a detail in your conclusion, is that, by having a `don't commit` option, I would have probably no journal objects at all for Terminal.
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
