Re: Looking for unit tests written for GNOME 2 back in 2004

Hi, On Sat, 2021-03-20 at 15:53 +0530, Tejas Sanap via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is going to be a weird request. > > But, I'm looking for unit tests that were contributed to the gnome > project back in 2004-2005. > > I have been trying to find them somewhere in the

Re: Can we enforce beta release for the freeze

Hi all, and long time no see, hope everyone is doing well... On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 08:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [...] > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 1:53 pm, Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > In the end, though, releases are manual labour; only the maintainer > > can say:

Re: Bootable GNOME images available

Hi Felipe, On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 12:09 +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > Hi Tristan, thanks a lot for working on this. It is definitely going > to help our development efforts both in CI and design. > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:39 AM Tristan Van Berkom via > desktop-devel-list wr

Bootable GNOME images available

Hi all, It's my pleasure to announce that we are now producing bootable images based on the very latest of GNOME modules as defined by the gnome-build-meta[1] (which we also use to build the releases and produce the GNOME flatpak runtime/sdk). At this time, the image is recreated every time

Re: System-wide dark mode

I've been meaning to reply somewhere in this thread... I am a user of the dark theme via the tweak tool. In the GNOME 2 days, we did some effort in Glade to ensure that we were compatible with HCI themes (high contrast invert as we called them), as I recall we also ensured on a GNOME wide

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

Hi Matthias, I am replying to your post because I think it is masterfully written and agree with it. That said, the opinions expressed here are my own, I urge people to not confuse my own arguments with Matthias's, and consider these separately. On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 19:11 +0200, Matthias

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Been on vacation and amused with this thread... On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 15:54 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 14:26 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 12:54, wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Bastien Nocera > > > wrote: > > > > It's

Re: Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

Sorry I've been slow on this thread, it's an inopportune time as I'm stuck in all day meetings all week... On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 14:24 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Florian Müllner   > wrote: > > Really, the only thing I disagree with

Re: Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

Hi all, This will be a long email, so TL;DR: o At this time you can keep using JHBuild for these few cases where testing is very difficult, you can even do so indefinitely. o For these few modules who dont benefit directly at development time from the release team's official

Re: Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

Hi Jens, Hurried reply whilst getting ready to go to airport... On Sun, 2018-01-21 at 10:16 +0100, Jens Georg wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 11:06 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > This bears repeating: the release team will no longer maintain > > JHBuild  > > or the

Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

Hi, The time has come, the Release Team is now maintaining the GNOME releases in BuildStream format, which is now available at: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-build-meta This repo is intended to contain the build metadata required for building the GNOME core modules only, while many

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 03:45 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it possible to add to the guidelines to write your meson file such > that you check dependencies as soon as possible and fail early? I think we can do better than that. Since unlike other build systems, meson is more of a

Re: GNOME Modulesets migrating to BuildStream - clang completion in text editor

Hi! Quick handphone reply... > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 03:16:09PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: >> Had not considered this use case yet, thanks ! >> >> I'm an emacs user bu

Re: GNOME Modulesets migrating to BuildStream - clang completion in text editor

On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 17:00 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > Hi, > > I've tried a little BuildStream, but I think I'll hit a problem if I > don't use jhbuild anymore: have clang completion in my preferred text > editor, it needs all the *.h files of dependent libraries. Currently > those *.h

GNOME 3.27.2 RELEASED

:  https://www.gnome.org/start/unstable Cheers, Tristan Van Berkom GNOME Release Team ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: GNOME Modulesets migrating to BuildStream

On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 01:45 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: > On 11/10/2017 12:46 AM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > I'm sorry that out of the many things I have to juggle, I had never > > considered Builder compatibility to be a blocker for the GNOME release > > team to st

Re: GNOME Modulesets migrating to BuildStream

this by a whopping additional six months is a serious setback to the project, which currently has momentum and as such; viability. On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 13:44 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: > On 11/09/2017 03:20 AM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: [...] > However, many of us plan our cycles before the

GNOME Modulesets migrating to BuildStream

Hi All ! Following my earlier proposals (long[0], shorter[1]), our discussions with the release team in the unconference days of GUADEC, and some followup internal release team discussion[2], I'm proud to announce (with my spiffy new release team hat on) our intent to stop maintaining the

Re: Build and run gnome-shell in a Docker container

Hi ! On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 16:55 +0200, Reto Kaiser wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > It will normally be possible to use BuildStream in the near future (or > > does it already work?) for running gnome-shell built from git. > > > >

Re: Projects page on wiki

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:19 PM Diane Trout wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 22:41 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: >>> So we have this great projects page but it seems we need to clean up as

BuildStream proposal - take two (shorter version)

Hi all, So GUADEC is upon us, and, as last time I sent this proposal out it was overly detailed[0], I'll send out a less wordy proposal which I hope everyone can easily digest. We do have plans and ideas which go beyond the basic scope of the proposal but let's take baby steps and talk about

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: [...] > > > > > - git-bz attach equals to git push origin HEAD:fix2340issue, then > > > click create merge request. > > > > Does this rewrite the commit message to include the PR or bug > > number? > > No, as

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 14:22 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > [Written on behalf of Alberto Ruiz, Carlos Soriano, Andrea Veri, > Emmanuele Bassi and myself.] Hi ! I'd first like to say that I would love it that we embrace gitlab and run our own gitlab instance to manage GNOME's gits. There are some

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 14:41 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > Hi Tristan, > [...] > With jhbuild, when we enter into a jhbuild shell we are still in the > same directory, usually inside the git repository. With builddir == > srcdir we have all the files that we can directly open with our >

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

Hi Matthias, I realize now that this was too much information at once (even for the involved reader as opposed to a fly-by reader). So I'd like to thank you for your mind share. On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 16:39 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Tristan, > > again, it is impossible to reply to an

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

Hi Sasa, On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 17:45 +, Sasa Ostrouska wrote: > Woow, long one really. Ok, I think the idea is really good. Of course > a lot of work. I as a maintainer of a gnome desktop version for > Slackware would like to ask how this would handle the distros which > do not use systemd ?

Re: GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

Hi Christian, On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 10:07 -0700, Christian Hergert wrote: > On 04/25/2017 09:38 AM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > > > Any questions about what we have created so far and how it works ? > > Please > > reply and ask about these ! > > I don't th

GNOME Build situation and BuildStream

TL;DR: We are working to improve build tooling for GNOME software development, and are very interested in GNOME developer community feedback on the BuildStream approach we are taking, and how to achieve a successful transition. Hi all, By now many participants of this list

Re: Improving the way we build nightly apps

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 18:13 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:16 AM Michael Catanzaro g> wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 15:50 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: > > > You make it sound like there is already unanimous support for > > this  > > >

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 08:39 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 10:04 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > > > > I don’t think we’ve ported enough modules as testbeds yet. Meson is > > too new > > to jump into encouraging everyone to port GNOME modules en-masse. > > > > Maybe the

Re: [ Revised Proposal ] Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Sat, 2016-06-18 at 08:15 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: [...] > Tristan: I understand you don't give a crap about GNOME as a holistic > project; you've made it *painfully* clear over the years. I'd like to > point out that without GNOME working as a single unit nothing we do, > or did up until

Re: [ Revised Proposal ] Continuous Builds in GNOME

6-17 at 15:17 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 17:11 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > > > I dont believe you have any such functionality in jhbuild. > > > > At best, you can specify the sha1 of the commit you want to build > > of > > a gi

Re: [ Revised Proposal ] Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 17:49 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: [...] > I think with a couple of iteration we can work out an agreement.  :) Hi Sri, I can see you read through this diagonally, so I'll try a TL;DR version below... > So to wit, let me summarize your points: > > * Master is unstable

[ Revised Proposal ] Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 22:24 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: [...] > > This of course, requires real thought and engineering, but I wanted > > to > > at least offer some technical input, some starting point that could > > be > > explored - this wont be solved without real engineering, trial and > >

Re: Continuous Builds in GNOME

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 01:53 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > I found this discussion really fascinating and so I wanted to > continue it, separately from Emmanuele's thread so that issue is > resolved without bifurcating the discussion. > > My thoughts are that we really shouldn't be looking at

Re: Installed tests - parallel installability

On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 15:33 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > Hi, > > Currently the installed tests [1] of libraries are not parallel > installable. > Hi Sébastien,   A.) The change that you propose for GTK+-3's install path for       installed tests is harmless as far as I can see, no      

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 05:18 +0100, Vamp898 wrote: > Hi,  > Hi Shirakawa, I see you replied off list, I am returning this to the list because it is a good question to answer and it's rather wasteful to compose a full reply to this and not have the benefit of it being recorded in the archives for

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 11:40 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 09:25 -0800, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > > It's more frequent than you might think. > > > > In the past week, alone, we've had to tag glib, gnome-calculator, > > e-d-s, gstreamer, and more, all because of broken

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 12:12 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 16:03 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 14:54 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > [...] > > > This is not enough, and it does not raise the bar in keeping > > >

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 10:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [...] > I really don't think it's a big deal to have a few reverts in the git > history. And anyway, reverts should be relatively rare, because build > breakage should be relatively rare. > > The master branch may be unstable, but that

Re: Build sheriffs for GNOME

On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 14:54 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: [...] > This is not enough, and it does not raise the bar in keeping GNOME in > a buildable state. It actually lowers it a fair , to the effective > point that *nobody* cares about Continuous builds. > > I want this to change. I want to be

Re: Killing off UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla

On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 22:12 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 21:27 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: A bug triager only needs to look at UNCONFIRMED bugs. I strongly disagree with that statement. Triage takes place across the full life cycle of a report [1]. A contributor

Re: Unreviewed patches - is the boat sinking?

On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 09:34 +0200, Joanna Larsen wrote: Hello. I'm new to Gnome. Some time ago I started looking into the inner workings of it. Reading the source code, learning from it. Coming up with a few ideas. So I jumped on Bugzilla eager to fix bugs and contribute features. Until

Re: Travel assistance applications to attend to GUADEC

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Germán Póo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 14:47 -0700, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: The GNOME Foundation provides travel sponsorships to individuals that want to attend GUADEC and need financial assistance. We are happy to announce that the

Re: New GnomeGoal proposal: InstalledTests

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: Do we have (makefile) infrastructure to allow GTests to run both uninstalled (during make *check) and installed? Not at this

Re: New GnomeGoal proposal: InstalledTests

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 18:49 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Hi, On 04/26/2013 05:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Dan Winship wrote: I want make distcheck to still run all of

Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote: Spring is in the air - things change, people are looking for things to try and new goals. I propose that we set ourselves a new goal: port GNOME to Wayland Wayland has reached the 1.0 milestone recently and it

Re: jhbuild continuous integration testing: status and plans

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello fellow GNOMErs, after the first round of discussions a month ago[1] about the jhbuild CI building/testing [2] I'd like to give some status update. Along the same topic, I wanted to bring to light something that

Re: -Werror considered harmful

Hi Behdad. I'll be the first to agree that -Werror is evil stuff, we even fell into this catch 22 only around a year ago where one group thought it was a good idea to infect our builds with -Werror, while another group thought it was a good idea to add deprecation warnings, ... I'm not even sure

Re: Announcement/RFC: jhbuild continuous integration testing -- mystery of recent flood of failures solved

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Simon McVittie simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk wrote: On 18/02/13 22:34, Martin Pitt wrote: Please note that there is no system D-BUS and no default session D-BUS running. If you need those, then the tests should start dbus-launch or use GTestDBus.

Re: Announcement/RFC: jhbuild continuous integration testing

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello Tristan, Tristan Van Berkom [2013-02-14 6:42 +0900]: Upon reading this particular part (and I noticed before you are using mostly jhbuild mechanics), it leads me to wonder, how granular exactly

Re: Announcement/RFC: jhbuild continuous integration testing

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:12:10AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: That is indeed the long-term plan, but there's still some work to be done before we can do that. The machine we are running this on has 64 2.7 GHz cores and 64 GB

Re: Announcement/RFC: jhbuild continuous integration testing

First, this sounds like really interesting stuff, great news. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hello fellow GNOME developers, this already came up as a side issue recently[1], but now we are at a point where have reasonably stabilized our GNOME

Re: Privacy/Security Friends of GNOME campaign?

Tristan Van Berkom pseudonym. Then I would not share this particular identity because I may risk sharing GNOME private stuff (like GNOME commit access)... But I may at other times rather to use a shared identity. Sharing an identity would mean that others would have access to all the facebook/google

Re: make --silent

On 2012-09-09, at 2:35 AM, Lanoxx lan...@gmx.net wrote: Hi Colin, can you give me a concrete example of some output where the silent switch is actually problematic? For every occasion where I have used it so far, it only removed lines which look like make[2]: Leaving directory

Re: jhbuild update required

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com wrote: On 5 September 2012 15:13, Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote: jhbuild is not meant to be packaged. I'd highly suggest you stop packaging jhbuild. Yes, you're not the only one to say that. But, I thought a big

Re: RFC: Securing maintainer uploads to master.gnome.org

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 07:47:26PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:    I think it's nice that currently we can upload win32 and osx builds of gnome modules/apps and have them available on gnome servers, if we take away

Re: RFC: Securing maintainer uploads to master.gnome.org

I think it's nice that currently we can upload win32 and osx builds of gnome modules/apps and have them available on gnome servers, if we take away shell access then perhaps the install-module/ftpadmin script should be enhanced to allow this (afaik the only way currently is to manually place a

Re: Use of maintainer mode in GNOME modules

2011/9/12 Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:09 +0100, Javier Jardón wrote: Hi all, As you can read in the Ryan blog post [1], the use of the AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro is only correct when used in this way: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]) As ryan said in the blog

Re: Archiving 120 Git modules with no commit in 3 or more years

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: Checking the last commits of the modules on git.gnome.org, I noticed we have 120 modules which haven't received a commit in the last 3 years. I'll archive the modules somewhere this week (modules can easily be moved out of

Re: Modulesets Reorganization

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 07:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: ...total nightmare... ...crush all these efforts... I understand that change is uncomfortable and incites fear, but can we please lay off the melodramatic voice

Re: Versioned symbols for 3.0?

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Behdad Esfahbod behdad.esfah...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/18/2010 12:12 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: And neither are there plans to start using versioned symbols. Good news then. Did you

Re: Backup

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote: Is GNOME interested in shipping an official backup program?  I (as a long-time lurker) haven't ever noticed discussion about it. I feel the backup market currently has a lot of almost-there UIs and lots of duplicated

Re: Backup

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Michael Terry m...@mterry.name wrote: 2009/11/18 Tristan Van Berkom t...@gnome.org: Usually what is best is for you to make an official proposal and explain why you think your module should be included in GNOME releases - personally I think if we dont have any

Re: Forcing button icons (Re: Appearance properties)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Andre Osku Schmidt andre.osku.schm...@osku.de wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given on how to get the icons back. i remember there was also a hint about the

Re: Forcing button icons (Re: Appearance properties)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Andre Osku Schmidt andre.osku.schm...@osku.de wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 13:02 -0200, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: Just to be sure.. are you declaring your button as a stock button with stock ids for the play pause buttons ? ... or are you using a button

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Danielle Madeley danielle.made...@collabora.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: I think for most modules, confirming bugs has usually seemed like a waste of of the maintainer's time. Confirming bugs assumes that the maintainer

Branching Glade 3.6 line

Created a stable branch for Glade 3.6 today, the branch is called 'glade-3-6' I hope to make releases off the 3.6 branch for a while and only use master for some patches that are not release ready just yet, or patches which may break string/ui freezes. Cheers, -Tristan

Glade re-branched stable as gnome-2-28

After a moments pause, I decided this year was a good time to go with the GNOME branching scheme. It will make more sense if Glade does not see a major point release for quite some time to just branch with the gnome version numbers (will be easier for me to handle patches which break freezes

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 15:26 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom: So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should be the minimum standard of attention that a maintainer must absolutely pay to his buglist

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: [...] So to summarize, the question boils down to: Are you able to take a look at the latest glade3 bug reports once a year? If not, glade3 probably has to be excluded from the policy. I receive bugmail for all bugs and I am

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, C de-Avillez hgg...@ubuntu.com wrote: [...] All, We had a chat a few ago on #bugs, and we agree this was rather too inclusive: as Tristan points out, and others commented, a confirmed (i.e., status NEW) bug is no longer under the care of the bugsquad. We

Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

Guys, Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the buglist and throwing them into a NEEDINFO state. Javier pointed me to a blog post[0] which describes a new policy to mark bugs as NEEDINFO after one year. I'm

Re: Trying a new toolbar style

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Calum Bensoncalum.ben...@sun.com wrote: [...] IIRC Glade's toolbar editor never used to allow developers to set either of these properties for any given toolbar button, which didn't help.  I don't know if that's changed in the past six months or so -- if not,

Glade: big plans with no hands

Hello Desktop Hackers, Since as usual I was not available to be barking insanities at palm trees at GUADEC this year, and also since Javier Jardón made the amazing contribution of redoing glade.gnome.org[0] for us in a much more simple and modern way, I was motivated draw out a roadmap[1] to a

Re: GNOME and non-linux platforms (release team please stand up)

Morning folks ;-) On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Andre Klapperak...@gmx.net wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:21 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom: On the other hand, its possible we could do better tracking this stuff, is there a l.g.o. page that I can visit that shows me what

Re: GNOME and non-linux platforms (release team please stand up)

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schallerura...@gnome.org wrote: So I would like to ask the GNOME release team to please come forward and clearly state that the future of GNOME is to be a linux desktop system as opposed to a desktop system for any Unix-like system. I

Glade: big plans with no hands

Hello Desktop Hackers, Since as usual I was not available to be barking insanities at palm trees at GUADEC this year, and also since Javier Jardón made the amazing contribution of redoing glade.gnome.org[0] for us in a much more simple and modern way, I was motivated draw out a roadmap[1] to a

Re: Glade: big plans with no hands

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tristan Van Berkomt...@gnome.org wrote: Hello Desktop Hackers,  Since as usual I was not available to be barking insanities at palm trees at GUADEC this year, and also since Javier Jardón made the amazing contribution of redoing glade.gnome.org[0] for us in a

Re: Glade: big plans with no hands

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Tristan Van Berkomt...@gnome.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tristan Van Berkomt...@gnome.org wrote: Hello Desktop Hackers,  Since as usual I was not available to be barking insanities at palm trees at GUADEC this year, and also since Javier Jardón

Re: A not about GtkBuilder conversion

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Matthias Clasenmatthias.cla...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Christian Perschc...@gnome.org wrote: Is there any special reason that gtk-builder-convert is unsuitable as a build-time tool? If it has bugs, they should simply be fixed. Send

Re: Libglade officially deprecated in favor of GtkBuilder.

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Also, when there are GtkMenu defined in a glade file, the gtk-builder-convert script will generate a GtkUIManager, but if I open that generated file with glade-3, and save again, the ui manager is gone... Files

Re: Platform

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote: Hey folks, [...] I would like to get people's opinions on what technologies we should be pushing.  I'm interested both in the here and now and in what people think the Gnome 3 message should be. Hi, Great time to

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Cody Russell brats...@gnome.org wrote: [] Yeah, but the thing that sucks about versioned ChangeLogs is merging/rebasing your code.  Typically you always leave writing a ChangeLog last for this reason, but it just makes so much more sense to be able to

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote: [...]  Dude, we have moved to git and you are still talking of versioned ChangeLog and favoring large patches? With a tool like git, you should be at least able to generate a single reviewable patch, large or

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) zee...@gmail.com wrote: [...]  Reminds me of my friend who insists that evolution is nothing more than hoax and when I try to educate him, he doesn't want to discuss it. :) There are simply two facts to be kept in mind here: 1. All

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote: [...] So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git history on one end and NEWS on the other? Who are the people who need more information than NEWS gives, but who would not want to actually check out

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Vermeersch ru...@savanne.be wrote: On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:20 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dan Winship d...@gnome.org wrote: [...] So, actually, what exactly IS the use case of ChangeLog if there is git history

Re: On autogenerated ChangeLog

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote: Hey, I first wrote Makefile.am magic for Pango to generate ChangeLog from git on demand.  Those macros have been modified and gathered in http://live.gnome.org/Git/ChangeLog to only generate ChangeLog for make dist.  I

Re: quo vadis, docs

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: [...] Dan Winship wrote: Dave Neary wrote: - Should we just ditch the docs and declare the UI self-explanatory ? Definitely not. Why not? Because (a) the docs are pretty good, merely outdated, That statement just can't be

Re: quo vadis, docs

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: [...] Amen. I've often felt developers should be required to document their own UI changes :) Heck, simply asking 'what does this dialog mean' would be useful a lot of the time...[1] Luis do you write software ? Not that its

Re: 2.26 will use GTK+ 2.16

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Diego Escalante Urrelo die...@gnome.org wrote: On 12/22/08, Frederic Peters fpet...@gnome.org wrote: Hello beloved hackers! The GTK+ team decided for a short 2.16 cycle, so it can already be used for GNOME 2.26; this is great news and something many

Glade 3.5.3 released

Hi, this is a follow up release to the last big release a few days ago with a few cleanups for the gnome development release, please refer to the last releases news[1] for the real juice. I also thought I'd cc d-d-l in this case since we have alot alot of new stuff and havent seen a release in

Glade 3.5.4 released

[ reposting to lists I am not a member of with my other email address :-/ ] Hi, this is a follow up release to the last big release a few days ago with a few cleanups for the gnome development release, please refer to the last releases news[1] for the real juice. I also thought I'd cc d-d-l in

Re: Reduced Bugzilla functionality for 6+ months -- acceptable?

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GNOME Bugzilla is still using 2.20. Current stable upstream is at 3.2. The stable version has several benefits, but overall: * no crappy table locking, while still allowing full text indexing (table locking causes

Re: Cleanup tasks

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: During a recent release team meeting, the idea was brought up that we should put forward some non-mandatory cleanup tasks that we'd like to see some progress on during this development cycle. Because, everybody loves to

Re: Preserve glade files when switching from libglade to gtkbuilder format

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Fernando Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Christian Persch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, glade-3 is still not working on all features in the gtkbuilder format (e.g. nautilus' and gnome-terminal's .ui files break badly

Glade is late

Hello fellow hackers, Simply put, this is a call for aid. Normally I obviously wouldnt try to explicitly solicit help this way (and I've never been good with project PR anyway) but in light of GTK+'s progress over recent times I feel its my responsibility here to make a statement because Glade

Re: Translator credits (to maintainers)

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Jonh Wendell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, folks. This is just a warning about translator names in NEWS file: You should get the translator name from the Last Translator field in the .po file, not from po/Changelog. Sometimes the translator is not the same

Re: Recommended way to cleanup your own gobject types in a desktop app (finalize and/or dispose)

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Ali Sabil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, iirc, the GObject documentation states that dispose may be called multiple times, and the object must still be usable even after dispose is called, so freeing memory in dispose is wrong, even with locks.

  1   2   >