2008-06-24 klockan 00:53 skrev Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen:
However insulted some people will feel by Wouter's comments I beg; can
we please stop this thread here?
Sorry, seems my comments were a bit harsh. I should watch my words more
carefully when sending messages late at night... :)
For
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:27 +0300, natan yellin wrote:
1. Host an annual developer awards contest. Apple does it, and there's
really no reason why we shouldn't as well. The system would have to be
adapted a bit, but it _is_ doable. Like it or not, shiny prizes and
recognition help attract
Hi,
Dan Winship and Lucas Rocha have done a nice job revamping the
gnome-session codebase. It was a meritorious task. You can read
about the design here:
http://live.gnome.org/SessionManagement/NewGnomeSession
The new code is much cleaner. Parts of the new design are very good.
In particular,
On Wed, 25.06.08 19:07, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We can still support applications that only know if they should
inhibit just in time by emitting a signal when a logout is
requested. The applications can then take an inhibit in response to
that signal.
This part sounds
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 01:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 25.06.08 19:07, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We can still support applications that only know if they should
inhibit just in time by emitting a signal when a logout is
requested. The applications can
On Wed, 25.06.08 19:49, David Zeuthen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 19:07 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
What do you think?
Definitely +1 from me. The proposal is well thought out and you've done
your research/homework. Plus it builds upon and uses well-understood and
Hey Lennart,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Lennart Poettering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25.06.08 19:07, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We can still support applications that only know if they should
inhibit just in time by emitting a signal when a logout is
On Wed, 25.06.08 20:00, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hey!
We can still support applications that only know if they should
inhibit just in time by emitting a signal when a logout is
requested. The applications can then take an inhibit in response to
that signal.
This
On Thu, 26.06.08 00:48, Bastien Nocera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 01:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 25.06.08 19:07, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We can still support applications that only know if they should
inhibit just in time
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 19:49 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
Most importantly, I think, this is a
good example of progress in GNOME via
the JFDI school of thought.
That is *exactly* what I was thinking when I read Jon's email.
Well thought out indeed.
AfC
Sydney
signature.asc
Description: This
On Thu, June 26, 2008 11:07 am, William Jon McCann wrote:
I don't think these are sufficient reasons to continue to solely rely
on XSMP. We can do these very well using D-Bus.
Can I assume from your use of the word solely that your
backwards-compatibility strategy is to leave XSMP support in
Is there any way of allowing applications to prompt the user for
something before exiting as part of this process? Firefox at the least
likes to ask about saving session before quitting, and some other apps
(gnome-terminal for one) might like to ask if you're sure since you
have multiple tabs
12 matches
Mail list logo
