Luca Ferretti wrote:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders [1]
The migration from 2.x to 3.x is a good time to perform this, isn't
it? :)
[1] note: by now it's only a proposal
Indeed this should be targeted for 3.x.
Have a nice day :)
- Sven
2010/6/6 Sven Pfaller kalterre...@gmx.net:
Luca Ferretti wrote:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders [1]
The migration from 2.x to 3.x is a good time to perform this, isn't
it? :)
[1] note: by now it's only a proposal
Indeed this should be targeted for 3.x.
We have some
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr wrote:
Hi!
I was wondering what kind of schema paths should adopt during the
migration to GSettings. Old GConf paths feel really lame, since we
basically put everything into /apps, with a few general settings going
to
Hi!
OK, as the discussion calmed down a bit I wanted to make some more
constructive comment to the new module organization. I feel that there
are a couple of (utility) applications that should be part of GNOME
(e.g. the Desktop module set). This is a subset of the current
application in the
Hi all!
Other GNOME translators have already commented on this proposal, but I
thought I'd share some of my views from the i18n/l10n point of view anyway.
Michael Terry m...@mterry.name, Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:54:49 -0400:
On 1 June 2010 19:37, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:
3. We strongly
2010/6/6 Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 01:37, Lucas Rocha luc...@gnome.org wrote:
Presently, we have this stub for what is considered as bindable:
http://live.gnome.org/GObjectIntrospection/WritingBindingableAPIs
Thanks a lot for that info.
Just added a
Le dimanche 06 juin 2010 à 19:53 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso a écrit :
Moving bindings modules to the Desktop moduleset won't make them less
second-class citizens as long as API that is not bindable without
resorting to language-specific glue code keeps being added to
Platform.
Examples of this
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 21:57, Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr wrote:
Le dimanche 06 juin 2010 à 19:53 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso a écrit :
Moving bindings modules to the Desktop moduleset won't make them less
second-class citizens as long as API that is not bindable without
resorting to
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
(...)
Hey,
before addressing any specific point I just want to say that I pretty
much agree with the spirit of the Release Team's proposal, if not with
all its details, and that I'd rather see us engage in a bit of
Johannes,
I really like your ideas:
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 20:55 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
OK, as the discussion calmed down a bit I wanted to make some more
constructive comment to the new module organization. I feel that there
are a couple of (utility) applications that should be
10 matches
Mail list logo
