Re: New module proposal: tracker
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 16:03 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 06.11.09 20:22, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote: There is one problem with POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED. If you do it on a file the kernel will drop it from its caches. This is generally what you want if you just indexed a 100 meg text file that no other app cares about atm, since it means we won't throw out 100 megs of otherwise useful caches. However, if you're reading a file that some other app actually cares about this may be a problem, since you're now ensuring that the file has to be re-read the next time that app wants to use the file. Not sure if there is a better way though... Shoudln't MADV_SEQUENTIAL do this? Enables aggressive read-ahead and quick freeing according to the man page. Not sure though if the latter is actually implemented by the VM in the way we'd want it here. I don't see anything in SEQUENTIAL mentioning that you don't want the file cached. It seems to be mainly about readahead. This seems like what you'd really want: POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE The specified data will be accessed only once. However, its useless: In kernels before 2.6.18, POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE had the same semantics as POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED. This was probably a bug; since kernel 2.6.18, this flag is a no-op. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Appearance properties
Hi, In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop: 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below. 2) Icons got removed from menus. 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs. 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was not possible to change (Bug #595341). And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not configurable anymore (Bug #592756). Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users, so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here. So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Regards, Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is thatdevelopers should enable in Appearance menu some configurationoptions regarding this issue. It is not so hard to implement. Uros --- Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Subject: Appearance properties From: xclae...@gmail.com To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:18:36 +0100 Hi, In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop: 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below. 2) Icons got removed from menus. 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs. 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was not possible to change (Bug #595341). And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not configurable anymore (Bug #592756). Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users, so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here. So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Regards, Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _ Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
+1 Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit : I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that developers should enable in Appearance menu some configuration options regarding this issue. It is not so hard to implement. Uros --- Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Subject: Appearance properties From: xclae...@gmail.com To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:18:36 +0100 Hi, In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop: 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below. 2) Icons got removed from menus. 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs. 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was not possible to change (Bug #595341). And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not configurable anymore (Bug #592756). Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users, so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here. So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Regards, Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list __ Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Hi, In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop: 1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below. 2) Icons got removed from menus. 3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs. 1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was not possible to change (Bug #595341). And now the whole interface tab was dropped. Making 1, 2 and 3 not configurable anymore (Bug #592756). Am I the only one to think something really insane is happening? It seems all those decisions are taken by a few developers that like that... This impact the whole desktop and is very visible to all users, so I think the discussion should be wider. That's why I'm posting here. So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? Ruben ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: RE: Appearance properties
I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application? I don't really see why we should disperse our efforts in two applications with the same purpose and it only make things more confusing for the users On Nov 10, 2009 10:39 AM, Jean Bréfort jean.bref...@normalesup.org wrote: +1 Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit : I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that developers should enable in Appea... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Please don't revert the status of bugs to unconfirmed. The bug status is fixed since the issue reported in the bug has been fixed. Regards, Thomas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: RE: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote: I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application? A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low importance preferences. The Appearance capplet includes three sections. Background is probably most used, Font is of high importance (for accessibility) and Theme is probably a medium priority preference. Regards, Thomas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module proposal: tracker
Iain wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof s...@pvanhoof.be wrote: Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can immediately connect a signal to and get informed when something gets added, removed and changed. http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/Documentation/SignalsOnChanges With DBusGProxy you also already have a GObject to make a SPARQL query. You just have one method called SparqlQuery that takes a string, and that returns an array of an array of strings. It can't get much more simple than that. Except that with libtracker-client you don't even have to think DBus anymore. I saw the DBus API, I just didn't seriously think you were proposing it as application facing API. Porting the QTtracker library (or writing a high-level GObject equivalent) should be a priority if you want to get Tracker accepted by GNOME. As John mentioned earlier, see: https://labs.codethink.co.uk/index.php/p/sparql-glib/ I'd be quite happy to propose this as a GNOME module. It probably needs some cleaning and tidying but is completely usable at this point. Thanks, Rob iain ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I would like wider acceptance before. I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;) Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Tracker and NFS (was Re: New module proposal: tracker)
Bastien Nocera wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 19:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 17:57 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 18:53 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 09:28 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote: Surely apps should ship pre-indexed help files? Or at least do the indexing at install time when installing from tarballs. All right. Is there a suitable open format for that? Yes, the format for pre-installed content is Turtle. You have a command- line tool and a DBus API to instruct tracker-store to import such a Turtle file. You can for example in the postinst of a package do this. There's a tracker-store listening system-wide? Hmm, that's a good point. I guess you'll have to iterate over all users and foreach su $user -c tracker-sparql -q -u $qry I understand that this is not nice :(. But indeed, tracker-store isn't system-wide, instead it's per user. That won't work because you won't have access to the session D-Bus, and certainly wouldn't work with, say, 1k users with NFS home dirs. Taking this in a slightly different direction, in the Codethink office we've been considering the network case. For thin client systems we think it'd make more sense to run the indexer on the file server and, instead of running a local tracker-store, have a dbus service that provides the same interface but does the query remotely on the server. Of course, this starts to lead us into the permissions side of RDF (aka quad stores) which is currently a) unimplemented in Tracker and b) needs quite a bit of thought. Thanks, Rob ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I would like wider acceptance before. I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;) You're confusing this place for a democracy :) We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise. The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given on how to get the icons back. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I would like wider acceptance before. I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;) You're confusing this place for a democracy :) We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise. The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given on how to get the icons back. Actually I started this thread because starting from today, GNOME does not have any way to get icons back anymore. gconf-editor is not considered a tweak application ;-) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: RE: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:24 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote: I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application? A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low importance preferences. The Appearance capplet includes three sections. Background is probably most used, Font is of high importance (for accessibility) and Theme is probably a medium priority preference. I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the sane default changed and became unusable/ugly... now it is really useful to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now really important. Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:08 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I would like wider acceptance before. I definitely give a -1, but if I'm alone then ignore me ;) You're confusing this place for a democracy :) We might as well enable Bugzilla voting otherwise. The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given on how to get the icons back. Actually I started this thread because starting from today, GNOME does not have any way to get icons back anymore. gconf-editor is not considered a tweak application ;-) That's because when we mentioned the tweak application in the past, we postponed decisions until somebody wrote that elusive application. Nobody did. So we remove the functionality, and if you care enough, you'll write that tweak application. See this on how you could implement it: http://fagonfoss.com/blog/?p=414 Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: RE: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low importance preferences. The Appearance capplet includes three sections. Background is probably most used, Font is of high importance (for accessibility) and Theme is probably a medium priority preference. I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the sane default changed and became unusable/ugly... *for you*. personally, I like the current default very much. now it is really useful to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now really important. if it really is that important, fix gTweakUI and use that to restore your preferred setting. gnome-appearance-capplet should not be the kitchen sink. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basicallyneed one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons'or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If thiscommunity is not able to implement this simple thing that means thatsomething is going very bad here. Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effectivethan KDE and as time pass we have to import many of technologiesfrom them. Let's we turn the page! Uros --- Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Subject: Re: RE: Appearance properties From: eba...@gmail.com To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:35:53 + On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low importance preferences. The Appearance capplet includes three sections. Background is probably most used, Font is of high importance (for accessibility) and Theme is probably a medium priority preference. I think, but could be wrong, that tab was indeed useless... until the sane default changed and became unusable/ugly... *for you*. personally, I like the current default very much. now it is really useful to get back to previous configuration, so the interface tab is now really important. if it really is that important, fix gTweakUI and use that to restore your preferred setting. gnome-appearance-capplet should not be the kitchen sink. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _ Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote: I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons' or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this community is not able to implement this simple thing that means that something is going very bad here. What's wrong is a community that's devoid of the powers and will to make changes that in the long run will be beneficial. Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effective than KDE and as time pass we have to import many of technologies from them. That's a plain wrong statement, and one that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote: I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons' or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this community is not able to implement this simple thing that means that something is going very bad here. you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed. you are part of this community too: write a patch for gTweakUI if you want to. the project is available here: http://gtweakui.sourceforge.net/ you can even start something new or fork the project if you feel adventurous. what you shouldn't do is come here and tell people what to do. Beside the fact that GNOME started to be less and less effective than KDE and as time pass we have to import many of technologies from them. this has nothing to do with the topic on hand. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module proposal: tracker
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor rob.tay...@codethink.co.uk wrote: Iain wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof s...@pvanhoof.be wrote: Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can immediately connect a signal to and get informed when something gets added, removed and changed. http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/Documentation/SignalsOnChanges With DBusGProxy you also already have a GObject to make a SPARQL query. You just have one method called SparqlQuery that takes a string, and that returns an array of an array of strings. It can't get much more simple than that. Except that with libtracker-client you don't even have to think DBus anymore. I saw the DBus API, I just didn't seriously think you were proposing it as application facing API. Porting the QTtracker library (or writing a high-level GObject equivalent) should be a priority if you want to get Tracker accepted by GNOME. As John mentioned earlier, see: https://labs.codethink.co.uk/index.php/p/sparql-glib/ I'd be quite happy to propose this as a GNOME module. It probably needs some cleaning and tidying but is completely usable at this point. Thanks, Rob One option is that some of this code could be merged into tracker itself, if it is deemed useful, along with exposing TrackerSparqlBuilder (which might be internal atm? can't remember). Just an option, but i'm not strictly in favor of that as i had hoped to see it able to access other SPARQL endpoints like dbpedia.org. That said, theres no reason it couldnt support multiple endpoint types, as im sure the miners would love to query such repositories online. The main problem with sparql-glib as it stands is that it stands is that its still quite low level. You are essentially building an AST by hand and then sparql-glib flattens that into sparql. For the common case we need to come up with something a little higher level i think. Like gobject property getters (pass in multiple properties to fetch, it builds and uses the AST to get sparql). However for complicated queries with lots of relations to other resources this approach won't be as useful, i think. I'd like to see jalchemy merged in to sparql-glib too, as that is really just a wrapper to make using sparql-glib less verbose from js land. John iain ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed. Not sure I understand the discussion here. GNOME -had- UI to tweak this option, and suddenly decided not to support configuring it in the main desktop. I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus), but I miss being able to change the toolbar style. The 2.28 text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under. Is that really such a forbidden use case? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: GtkImageView
Hi, Le dimanche 08 novembre 2009, à 02:16 -0500, Matthew Barnes a écrit : I'd like to use Björn Lindqvist's GtkImageView widget [1] in Evolution for displaying image attachments inline. Evolution has been displaying image attachments inline on its own for ages, but GtkImageView does it better, is fully documented [2], and offers panning and zooming features that are nice for large images. I already have a working implementation in the form of a conditionally compiled inline-image plugin (which replaces our crusty old built-in image handling code), so the dependency would be optional. Approving GtkImageView as an external dependency might also make it more appealing to the gThumb and Eye of GNOME developers. I'd love to get comments from gthumb/eog people about this. Also, what features of GtkImageView do you use? Should some of those live in some way in gtk+? Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus), but I miss being able to change the toolbar style. The 2.28 text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under. Is that really such a forbidden use case? It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. In 2.30, if you still want to change this option, you can open gconf-editor, navigate to the /desktop/gnome/interface/toolbar_style key and set it to the value you want (both). Regards, Thomas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Adding a dependency to libchamplain
Hi Pierre-Luc, Le mardi 27 octobre 2009, à 11:03 -0400, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin a écrit : Hi, I am slightly late for this but we'd like to add a dependency to libchamplain in the 0.6 cycle (which corresponds to 2.29/2.30 timeframe). Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually do whatever you want, but it's great to see you asking :-) As far as I can tell, this seems reasonable and it could even help a bit with accessibility. Unless anybody has an objection, I guess you could just go ahead. Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the Interface options mentioned above have been removed. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jud Craft craft...@gmail.com wrote: It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the Interface options mentioned above have been removed. That is because we have removed it in Fedora before it was removed upstream. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the Interface options mentioned above have been removed. That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :) Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this got upstream. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the Interface options mentioned above have been removed. That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :) Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this got upstream. Obviously they missed inkscape... But since we don't have icons I guess inkscape is not useful anymore... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: GtkImageView
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:05 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: I'd love to get comments from gthumb/eog people about this. Also, what features of GtkImageView do you use? Should some of those live in some way in gtk+? I found a discussion with the EoG folks from a couple years ago. Sounded like they were receptive to the idea but it just never went anywhere: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/eog-list/2007-August/msg8.html I was actually pointed to GtkImageView by one of the EoG developers after asking whether they'd be open to shipping a reusable widget library like Evince has done: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/eog-list/2009-October/msg00011.html I've gone ahead with this in Evolution since the dependency is optional. Currently I'm just using its scaling and panning features for large image attachments in an email (and letting it cache pixbufs behind the scenes so we don't have to). I'm sure there's other cute things we could do with it. There's an enhancement request on file for showing a full-screen slide show of images in a given email. That would be easier to do now, I guess. Should these features live directly in GTK+? Right now I'd say no, but seeing EoG and/or gThumb move to and possibly help maintain or improve GtkImageView would be a good first step in that direction. Matthew Barnes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and you have to read most of them to actually find Division where it used to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon). Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. Pierre-Luc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:46 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this option through the appearance capplet. I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the Interface options mentioned above have been removed. That's because Fedora is ahead of upstream :) Just like we disabled the icons and fixed a number of apps before this got upstream. Obviously they missed inkscape... Possibly. Most of us don't use inkscape on a regular basis. We fixed most of what's in the GNOME desktop. But since we don't have icons I guess inkscape is not useful anymore... Superb attitude, and wrong statement as well. We still have icons for applications, people and locations (on top of my head). Discussion was there: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557469 if you want to read up before making more of a fuss. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and you have to read most of them to actually find Division where it used to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon). https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589584 was a bug report against eog, to always show icon for rotate/flip menu items, the same rationale could be applied to many Inkscape menu items. I quote Andreas in the bug report : (...) but I think it's one of those cases that falls under or if it makes the items in that menu segment very much more recognizable. as rotate clockwise could need some visualization in order to show what it means Cheers, Frederic ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and you have to read most of them to actually find Division where it used to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon). That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu entries. It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the menus themselves through the GConf key. Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community usability people. I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community usability people. I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. Bastien, please don't translate this thread into general anger. Atleast for me, it's not the case. I can certainly see the upside of it in a lot of places. As such I'm not asking for a revert, I just wanted to note that going from one end of the extreme all the way to the other feels weird at some places. But I do welcome the change (and I highly respect our usability people, consider this a feedback loop, not an attack). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. And the new change is not merely all: apparently you're also taking away the capability to change back. Change is a lot easier to push when you can offer a comfort zone to temporarily revert it. It's not like icon and toolbar style are mission-critical-required to be locked in stone, so removing the ability to change back was arguably excessive. Unless casual users are going to band together and make their own tweak program, or alter GConf keys, or some nonsense like that. I'm fine with the new style, but I find that assumption (we can remove that, and tell users to just hack around us if they don't like it!) a little ridiculous. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
General anger is not something which need to be translated.I, for example, want all best to GNOME and to this community.But, as far as I could see, some things go in wrong way andI just would like to point on that. I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and alsoI want to become one of significant contributors, but firstI do not know how many developers GNOME have and itsresponsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes,etc. I mean I know something but not on satisfying levelto be able to develop. Uros --- Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Subject: Re: Appearance properties From: ru...@savanne.be To: had...@hadess.net Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:34:40 +0100 CC: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community usability people. I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. Bastien, please don't translate this thread into general anger. Atleast for me, it's not the case. I can certainly see the upside of it in a lot of places. As such I'm not asking for a revert, I just wanted to note that going from one end of the extreme all the way to the other feels weird at some places. But I do welcome the change (and I highly respect our usability people, consider this a feedback loop, not an attack). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: New module proposal: tracker
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:51 +, John Carr wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor rob.tay...@codethink.co.uk wrote: One option is that some of this code could be merged into tracker itself, if it is deemed useful, along with exposing TrackerSparqlBuilder (which might be internal atm? can't remember). TrackerSparqlBuilder only supports INSERT and DELETE queries*. * http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/SPARQL-Update.html We could easily expose this as client API, but we'd love to first have support for SELECT too. Otherwise it's a bit limited in usefulness for application developers. Maybe is sparql-glib providing this and could it extend TrackerSparql- Builder? We wouldn't be against accepting patches, if they are sane, to improve on tracker-sparql-builder.vala (even if we wouldn't use it yet ourselves). SPARQL should be generic for all kinds of RDF stores (virtuoso, tracker- store, etc) so it makes sense to keep it separate. Both KDE's metadata projects and tracker-store are indeed going for SPARQL and Nepomuk. It's indeed awesome that the metadata-ppl are in a big agreement on this atm. SPARQL for virtuoso and for tracker-store are of course mostly the same. We just have a few functions that other SPARQL services might not have, and vise-versa. For example fts:match, fts:offsets and fts:range. Standardizing them is part of exploring of SPARQL-on-Desktop. We're of course discussing this with other people in the desktop-metadata-world. If somebody wants to work on this perhaps a GSparqlQueryBuilder and then a TrackerSparqlQueryBuilder that extends, adds and overrides GSparqlQueryBuilder's virtuals with things that are specific for our store's specialized use-cases? /j #tracker and come talk with us. But You are already talking (and coding) with us, John ;), so this is for the other ppl. This client stuff doesn't have to be part of Tracker. We can make it part of Tracker. Let's architect design! :) Just an option, but i'm not strictly in favor of that as i had hoped to see it able to access other SPARQL endpoints like dbpedia.org. Exactly, precisely. That said, theres no reason it couldnt support multiple endpoint types, as im sure the miners would love to query such repositories online. Awesome that some people are getting it! Thanks John. The main problem with sparql-glib as it stands is that it stands is that its still quite low level. You are essentially building an AST by hand and then sparql-glib flattens that into sparql. For the common case we need to come up with something a little higher level i think. Like gobject property getters (pass in multiple properties to fetch, it builds and uses the AST to get sparql). However for complicated queries with lots of relations to other resources this approach won't be as useful, i think. Let's architect design! I'd like to see jalchemy merged in to sparql-glib too, as that is really just a wrapper to make using sparql-glib less verbose from js land. Sure, let's architect design! :) Hehe As long as people who'll actually code, not just talk, take part, we'll most likely join their ideas and help with the coding. People like you, John. So if you know where the others are hiding, go get them! It's absolutely not that we don't want this client stuff to happen, it's that we have quite a list of things to do in Tracker itself. A bit of momentum and contributors will help the client's side a lot, I think. And with that has this thread grown way too large. If all the energy that went into this thread would have been put in coding stuff, we'd have five client libraries by now. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and you have to read most of them to actually find Division where it used to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon). That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu entries. It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the menus themselves through the GConf key. Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community usability people. I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. Actually I don't want to complain here because it changed. I'm against but I can accept... What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. So the minimum required is a UI to tweak that... in *official* distribution, not some package totally unmaintained and unknown that nobody will ever install. Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the only people who write. -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
2009/11/10 Bastien Nocera had...@hadess.net: The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given on how to get the icons back. Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and some study about impact of this decision. And I agree with rest that asking people to mess with gconf or implement it in some thirty party tool (NOT as default) is no go. It is not encryption for VNC or some extra setting for working with dual head. This affects everyone. So far most of discussion about this issue has been something like 'we did it because we like it that way'. That's not a way to get wide-spread support for such major change in user interface. Also so far I haven't got direct answer how iconless menus helps me to find things speedily. Cheers, Peter. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the only people who write. So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. And no one asks to revert. I was ok about lack of icons till there was easy to find and easy to use option to turn it back. No there are plans to eliminate this option. Smells like pushing a change no matter others think. Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. We don't that luxury to waste users just because we think what we do is technically right. Cheers, Peter. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Adding a dependency to libchamplain
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:08 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually do whatever you want, but it's great to see you asking :-) I want to make sure I am walking in the defined paths. :) As far as I can tell, this seems reasonable and it could even help a bit with accessibility. Unless anybody has an objection, I guess you could just go ahead. Yes, it is the first step to improve a11y, although this first step will not improve it. Pierre-Luc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and some study about impact of this decision. This has all been posted on this list already and repeating doesn't make sense. Search the archives, please. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the only people who write. So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. so, let me get this straight: the proper way to deal with a community is to heed to the wishes of a vocal minority? Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. I propose a Lennart's Law, similar to Godwin's: as soon as PulseAudio is mentioned in a thread then the person mentioning it lost the argument. wth has PulseAudio to do with this? We don't that luxury to waste users just because we think what we do is technically right. who's we? ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:36 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever achieved with status quo. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. And the new change is not merely all: apparently you're also taking away the capability to change back. No, we're taking away one of the UIs for it. Read the beginning of the thread again. Change is a lot easier to push when you can offer a comfort zone to temporarily revert it. It's not like icon and toolbar style are mission-critical-required to be locked in stone, so removing the ability to change back was arguably excessive. Unless casual users are going to band together and make their own tweak program, or alter GConf keys, or some nonsense like that. I'm fine with the new style, but I find that assumption (we can remove that, and tell users to just hack around us if they don't like it!) a little ridiculous. I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add features to gTweakUI or write their own. At the end of the day, we're making the changes for the majority of users. And I'm pretty sure those who want to find their icons back for menu items, etc. will be able to find a way to change it back without us having to compromise for them. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community. Maybe the majority doesn't want to be part of your community though. Smells like pushing a change no matter others think. I'm still looking for a project (except for elections in communist countries) that still exists and where changes are only applied in case of 100% agreement. Other classic I know from bug reports: So you did research, but obviously you asked the wrong people, as you did not ask me!!! Again, this decision was already announced and discussed at this list a few months ago. If you want to discuss $stuff, join the discussion early enough. Coming up with it again and again without providing new arguments definitely makes me (and developers) ignore this thread as I got other stuff to do than bikeshedding whether a gconf key to change the setting is enough or not... Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' Completely unrelated. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:39 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I really don't think making some imaginary stats up is going to help the discussion. I for one am of this mysterious species called user and very happy with the change, as I find it to be cleaner and less distracting. Besides that I really doubt the part about a majority of users being against it, and even if I can't add some objective facts at least I can offer a different view: As some of you might know I'm a journalist covering Linux stuff and so I've written quite a few pieces where I mentioned this change in detail. But even though we have a very vocal community (and people are more likely to complain than to praise in online-forums) the icon removal was discussed only very very briefly. For instance recently we ran a piece about Ubuntu 9.10 and about problems people are seeing with it and not a single one out of 245 postings even mentioned the icon change. So while all this might be a very important and heated discussion for some who don't like the new default setting (or are generally against changes), claiming that the majority of users is against it is just making things up. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org Twitter: @suka_hiroaki Identi.ca: @suka signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add features to gTweakUI or write their own. I'm aware of gconf-editor. But saying a user has to go mess with the keys is pretty much a dumping ground for we don't actually support end-user customization of this item. If you meant for the end-user to use it, it will be in the GUI itself. Removing it from the UI has taken away a sort of legitimacy that the configuration option has - it's no longer part of the main desktop. This isn't horrible. I think that removing the user-facing option completely from the default desktop - or moving it to third-party configuration tweak status - is a suboptimal idea. This was one preference that wasn't going to break the bank. [Or maybe I'm pre-biased. Certainly I have no idea how to change the toolbar in OS X - likely it's not possible. So I can definitely live with it]. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the only people who write. So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. And you are attacking me because..? The only thing I did is point out a logic flow in the above statement (loudest == majority). -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
2009/11/10 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net: Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community. Maybe the majority doesn't want to be part of your community though. I and other users who oppose the change are part of community. Maybe I am not cool developer as you are (seriously, you guys rock, I don't argue that), but I am doing support for GNOME and Ubuntu for three years every day (Linux support for six years). I know what I am talking about. Smells like pushing a change no matter others think. I'm still looking for a project (except for elections in communist countries) that still exists and where changes are only applied in case of 100% agreement. Other classic I know from bug reports: So you did research, but obviously you asked the wrong people, as you did not ask me!!! Well, I am not against developer decisions. They have to be made by them (I agree it is not a democracy) and I see several reasonings as valid behind removal of icons. However, I am only surprised that only option to revert this change is gone. That's wrong in my opinion. I am not asking you to agree with me or change back. I can launch Terminal and issue gconf command, or do it in gconf-editor. I have no issues with that. I just don't like situation when I have to do support and have to tell user that in way to get back icons they have to launch command line and run a command. Again, this decision was already announced and discussed at this list a few months ago. If you want to discuss $stuff, join the discussion early enough. Coming up with it again and again without providing new arguments definitely makes me (and developers) ignore this thread as I got other stuff to do than bikeshedding whether a gconf key to change the setting is enough or not... No one will give you a new arguments. There have been some five mails about this already. No other change have made such noise in this list. This is indication that there is a part of community that doesn't buy any reasoning behind this change. People doesn't understand this reasoning. If you think that it shouldn't be addressed - fine. I think it should. Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' Completely unrelated. Completely related. Another grand change within free desktop with polarized results. I love PA and it improves nicely with every release. But it is still seriously broken for LOT of people. And it keeps creating negative word of mouth for Ubuntu, Fedora, GNOME and free software in general. I am worried about that. And I think you should too. Cheers and no hard feelings, Peter. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote: What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users. Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm happy with it but I'm not compelled to post about it. My girlfriend is either happy about it or she doesn't give a damn, she didn't post about it either. It always seems as if the majority was unhappy as the unhappy ones are generally the only people who write. So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to deal with community. And you are attacking me because..? The only thing I did is point out a logic flow in the above statement (loudest == majority). Patryk, I am not attacking you. I am just explaining that people who protest this change are also part of community. And there are some reasoning - like it or not, loudest minority are something you would like to deal with. Because they generate word of mouth. Cheers, Peter. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Xavier Claessens wrote: Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? +1 Stef ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : snip It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of being able to rely on icons. A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and you have to read most of them to actually find Division where it used to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon). That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu entries. It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the menus themselves through the GConf key. It seems nobody was doing it before, so my guess people were happy with it. Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything that shows that having none at all is better? That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite. There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community usability people. What I find hard to understand is there was NO discussion about this on the usability mailing list. A lot of those UI discussions seem to appear on various bugs, where people might not subscribed to and changes are done without any prior notification on usability list. Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments, it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now. It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. -- Frederic Crozat Mandriva ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. 4 months isn't a single GNOME release cycle. How would they get end-user feedback? What about GNOME software vendors not working within the 6-month cycle at all? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 16:36 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : snip It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. The issue here is too few people are running dev version of GNOME desktop. Also lots of people just assumed that it was a stupid bug that will quickly be fixed. Also we don't have ML to announce the big changes in GNOME. A little email can easily be sent to ddl without being really noticed by users and third parties. Did you announced that setting change before apply the patch and waited for advices? Did you announce that interface tab is going to be removed? I'm not even sure that was on ddl... and even if that was the case, I think it's not enough... Xavier Claessens. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : snip It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july (or a little before when it was committed on July 14). -- Frederic Crozat Mandriva ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:48 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. The issue here is too few people are running dev version of GNOME desktop. Also lots of people just assumed that it was a stupid bug that will quickly be fixed. again this word, lots. I don't think it means what you think it means. Did you announced that setting change before apply the patch and waited for advices? Did you announce that interface tab is going to be removed? yes. I'm not even sure that was on ddl... and even if that was the case, I think it's not enough... next time, the maintainers will come around your house and ring your bell, and tell you in person. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009, à 12:02 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit : On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/ Matthias, this is not a fair answer. It's a fact that changes that affect the whole desktop have to be announced, at a minimum to other developers. And the commit list is not appropriate for this. The change about the setting (so not the one about the tab removal) does affect our applications because we had to make sure some icons stayed visible (or that some other were really removed). FWIW, I think it was discussed/announced on gnomecc-list, in bugs, on irc. More communication could have been done, still. (And yes, more communication would have implied a long thread about it, but we still had the long thread in the end) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : snip It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july (or a little before when it was committed on July 14). It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not sure what else we can do. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le 10/11/2009 18:18, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit : snip It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any kind of prior notification to be able to fix their application. That is the reason why I had to revert the icon in button and icon in menu on Mandriva Linux 2010. Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4 months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to give for something so easily fixable. I don't remember seeing the announcement for this change anywhere and people discovered it after libgnome 2.27.5 was released in end of july (or a little before when it was committed on July 14). It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not sure what else we can do. Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as GNOME Art team (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change to be discussed and announced by usability team)). The announcement was a simple Visible control to toggle icons in buttons with absolutely nothing indicative of what people might find in the mail itself and was sent on July 22. That is not proper announcement. There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was made, they are being treated like children. PS : there is no need to cc me for any reply, I'm subscribed to this list. -- Frederic Crozat Mandriva ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Crozat fcro...@mandriva.com wrote: There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was made, they are being treated like children. The developer is in charge of the project, stop treating them like children. If you don't like it, you've got the source. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:03 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not sure what else we can do. Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as GNOME Art team (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change to be discussed and announced by usability team)). you, and others on this thread, make it look like everything was decided in a vacuum. I can't discern how much of this is intentional (and thus made by people actively trying to poison GNOME as a community), but it's there and it's mightily *pissing me off*. both the change of the default schema value and the removal of the Interface tab in the Appearance control center applet weren't decisions made in a vacuum. the bugs were discussed in a public venue (with a slightly better signal-to-noise ratio than d-d-l, if this thread should demonstrate the SNR of d-d-l); the usability team was involved in the discussion; the art team was involved in the discussion; the release team was involved in the discussion; the maintainers of all interested modules were involved in the discussion; the documentation team was notified (and involved). it was announced on PGO, the most public venue we have, by one of the parts involved. short of going door to door to every GNOME user, tell me: what should have been done? or maybe was just a case of sending a personal email to every packager, distro developer and maintainer of GNOME projects? and how much time should have been allotted for a reply? more or less than the 4 months that passed between the discussion and the 2.28 release? GNOME, like any other community effort, is made by those who show up. ciao, Emmanuele. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit : On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote: So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug: I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in such a way, then it should be done through an appropriate tweaks application. The interface tab does not contain options that are of interest to the majority of users. Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop? The fact that those options are useless for the majority of users is highly debatable and should definitely not depend on you+McCann alone. I would like wider acceptance before. even though I don't like much the change, this was discussed not only between Thomas and Jon, it was discussed on the gnome-control-center list as well, iirc, as d-d-l, so the decision has been made after a lot of discussion (and previous bashing) So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab? If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in gnome-control-center! :) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Hmm. This seems to turn into a flamewar with personal attacks. Don't like that. The Code of Conduct at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct states Assume people mean well, and while we disagree on decisions itself and/or their parameters (where, how and when it was discussed, decided and announced) I still prefer to assume that we do this because we are patient about GNOME. I hope that everybody agrees and that the thread remains (or becomes again?) constructive. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a 'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab? If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in gnome-control-center! :) On that topic, it strikes me as fairly logical to mix a new Interface capplet in with the window preferences. Good luck, whoever does it! Dylan (And for the record, I am very much in favour of this decisiveness in toolbar layout since it will make things easier and more stable for application developers). ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be patient ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Appearance properties
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:41 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote: I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and also I want to become one of significant contributors, but first I do not know how many developers GNOME have and its responsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes, etc. I mean I know something but not on satisfying level to be able to develop. start working on some GNOME module of your choice (hint: interface tweak capplet in gnome-control-center :) and you'll start knowing all that and much more :D ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On Tue, 10.11.09 21:58, Rodrigo Moya (rodr...@gnome-db.org) wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be patient Not sure what PA has to do with all of this, but if I google for I Love PulseAudio I get 21K results. If I google for I Hate PulseAudio I only find 16K results. Not sure what Peteris wanted to say, but I am quite sure that PA is not really suitable as an example for whatever it is. There are those who create and those who complain. And yes it is absolutely right if the former choose to disregard the latter, if they have reason to and they want to get things done. Lennart -- Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit : So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. I do share your concerns. I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but the way it has been managed. The change of default configuration has *not* been communicated properly. It was not secret, of course, but such important change affecting the whole desktop and each GNOME/GTK+ applications deserves a better communication. It should be announced on ddl at the beginning of the cycle, explaining the rational of the change, telling to maintainers about the new policy regarding icons and how they should make sure that their application still work fine. A plan should has been defined to ensure that all the applications (not only the GNOME ones but also the popular Gtk+ apps used on most GNOME desktop) wouldn't suffer from the change. Instead of that, most of the people discovered this change after it has been merged (or when they upgraded their GNOME) and, afaik, there are still no clear guidelines for maintainers explaining how they should deal with icons (maybe such doc exists but if it does it hasn't been communicated enough). If I was paranoid I'd be tempted to think that this miss-communication could have been somewhat intentional. If you want to push a controversial change, it's easier to not talk too much about it before so once people complain it's too late and they just have to suck it up. I'm not accusing anyone and really hope that this wasn't the case (as our code of conduct says we should assume that people mean well), but you have to understand why some people are upset about the way this whole thing has been managed. Finally, I think it's a bit sad that we spend more time discussing if it's ok to use $LANGUAGE to write GNOME apps and almost ignore such big change affecting the experience of any GNOME user in any application... Regards, G. -- Guillaume Desmottes c...@skynet.be Jabber cass...@jabber.belnet.be GPG 1024D/711E31B1 | 1B5A 1BA8 11AA F0F1 2169 E28A AC55 8671 711E 31B1 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
On 11/10/2009 10:58 PM, Guillaume Desmottes wrote: Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit : So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried. I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but the way it has been managed. The change of default configuration has *not* been communicated properly. It was not secret, of course, but such important change affecting the whole desktop and each GNOME/GTK+ applications deserves a better communication. It should be announced on ddl at the beginning of the cycle, explaining the rational of the change, telling to maintainers about the new policy regarding icons and how they should make sure that their application still work fine. A plan should has been defined to ensure that all the applications (not only the GNOME ones but also the popular Gtk+ apps used on most GNOME desktop) wouldn't suffer from the change. Yes, agreed. I am partly to blame for this, as I was involved in the discussion on the bug from the start, and because it was something the art team [1] (and UI people and hackers too) wanted to see happen. Somewhat I imagined the discussion on the bug report was enough, being quite active as it was, but it's hard to see things from another point of view while you're in the middle of a information flow. I'm terribly sorry for that. Will try to do better next time. If I was paranoid I'd be tempted to think that this miss-communication could have been somewhat intentional. If you want to push a controversial change, it's easier to not talk too much about it before so once people complain it's too late and they just have to suck it up. I'm not accusing anyone and really hope that this wasn't the case (as our code of conduct says we should assume that people mean well), but you have to understand why some people are upset about the way this whole thing has been managed. I must admit that I try to avoid posting too much on this list, as the traffic volume is quite high at points already, but perhaps things can go a bit too silent at times too. 1. Frederic Crozat was curious about who had discussed what at GCDS exactly. The people in the room was me, Hylke Bons, Vinicius Depizzol, Jakub Steiner, Garrett Lesarge, Benjamin Berg and Kalle Persson. We really wanted to see a cleaner desktop experience. It was also mentioned during the big GNOME 3.0 talk, but sorry if I was unclear during the talk. I was really nervous while doing that and can't really remember what was said and not. :/ - Andreas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Appearance properties
2009/11/10 Rodrigo Moya rodr...@gnome-db.org: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases. wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are sending Lennart to an empty island without Internet soon, just be patient Rodrigo, please read my follow up about this one. I like PA, I use it everywhere I can. I didn't attack Lennart in any way and I am sorry if it really seemed so. I just pointed out obvious - lot of people are confused and frustrated about PA efforts because they basic sound doesn't work. It worked before. So it is regression. And I know only way forward is to help Lennart to squash these bugs, doing proper bug reports and etc. This situation is similar and while I as a user completely trust GNOME developers in making decisions about desktop design, so far it have caused similar confusion. Cheers, Peteris. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
