Re: Is libgd still a thing?

Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote: ... > - nautilus > - evince > - totem > - gnome-photos > - gedit In terms of the platform, we're working to consolidate around libhandy/libadwaita. That's what the new HIG documents, and is what we're trying to constrain ourselves to on the

Re: Fonts Has Two New Maintainers

Christopher Davis wrote: ... > As of today, Evan Welsh and I are taking on the role of maintainer for Fonts > (gnome-font-viewer). > Cosimo Cecchi has been inactive as of late, and Evan and I are both > interested in keeping fonts > functional and up-to-date. Fantastic news! Thanks for

Re: New GNOME Account password reset tool is live!

Andrea Veri wrote: ... > the GNOME Infrastructure is making available a new web based tool that will > help you resetting your account password in case it was lost. As many of you > know, the current way of updating your password was running a command on your > terminal making sure your SSH

Official proposal for defining GNOME software

Hi everyone, The Board of Directors has been working on some new arrangements for how GNOME's software is classified and defined. I've described the proposal over on Discourse, and it would be great to get comments and feedback:

Re: System-wide dark mode

Matthias Clasen wrote: >> ... We can't implement that without design changes in GTK since >> for that we need the ability to *very quickly* switch between different >> themes in the same process, and that's currently too slow. > > > Unlikely to change, tbh. If your theme is loading too slowly, it

Re: System-wide dark mode

wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:35 AM, Allan Day wrote: > > Therefore, before we get too far into planning and implementing this > > feature: does anyone know of any serious obstacles they'd face, if we > > were to support a dark mode? > > WebKit is having troub

System-wide dark mode

Hi everyone, Whether you love dark modes or hate them, they're becoming fairly ubiquitous nowadays, and I think that it's time for GNOME to seriously think about having one of its own. If we were to support a system-wide dark preference in GNOME, the implication is that we'd generally support

Please run for the board!

Hi everyone, In case you didn't notice, we've had to extend the deadline for the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors elections, because not enough candidates put themselves forward. Please consider running in the elections. Being on the board is actually quite nice. It's also a great way to see

Re: Good read from a new GNOME user

Thanks Britt for starting this discussion, and thanks to Carmen for the useful summary. I don't agree with every point raised, but there are a lot of valid ones. I'll provide some brief comments from a design perspective. Obviously there are a lot of issues here: individual discussions should

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

Hi Britt, Just commenting on the parts I have answers to... Britt Yazel wrote: ... > 2) Back in early GNOME3 we had the slide up tray from the bottom. Am I the > only one who thought that was super cool? It had nice big icons for touch and > accessibility purposes, and it was just really cool

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

Link Dupont wrote: ... > Is there a place > in the System menu (the top-right corner menu) where these application > icons + menus could live? The GSConnect extension adds an entry there. > ... Unfortunately, GtkStatusIcon is limited in what it allows us to do: you can't embed the icons in

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

Hey Britt, Britt Yazel wrote: > > I want to re-poen an old argument now that we have seen the effects of > removing the sys-tray/app-indicator tray for well over a year. In short, > the users are not happy. > As I recently wrote on GitLab [1], I'm open to re-evaluating this from a design

Re: Clarifications regarding GNOME Online Accounts

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:53, wrote: ... > I suggest we don't continue to willfully violate Google's terms of > service now that the issue has been brought to our attention. The only > reasonable option seems to be to shut down our Google integration. Not > just from g-o-a, but also the Safe

Clarifications regarding GNOME Online Accounts

Hi all, Recently there has been quite a lot of debate on this mailing list about GNOME Online Accounts. Debarshi (the Online Accounts maintainer) and I wanted to clear up any confusion that might have resulted from that discussion, and clarify exactly what the situation is with Online Accounts

Re: GNOME 3.32 milestone review

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > Regarding the app menu retirement initiative, the lack of progress on > > Totem [1] is also a concern. > > I already said this was on my todo list though. Ah great, I hadn't realised. Thanks Bastien! Allan ___

Re: GNOME 3.32 milestone review

Great initiative, Carlos! Carlos Soriano wrote: ... > gnome-screenshot, retire app menu - Part of the GNOME initiative to remove > app menus. There is a MR, needs some review. Deadline 4th February, UI freeze. The thing we're missing here is participation from a maintainer. Is gnome-screenshot

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Hi Matthew, [replying selectively!] Matthew Paul Thomas via desktop-devel-list wrote: ... > ... gnome-initial-setup is pretty > much the worst possible time to expect someone to know which accounts, > if any, are useful to configure. At that point, someone is unlikely to > know even what apps

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > It's not Documents. It's Documents, and Pocket, and email integration, > which brings about the viability of applications ever integrating with > gnome-online-accounts, lest they be crippled. In my mind, Documents, Pocket and email are all fairly different (speaking

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Michael Gratton wrote: ... > > I don't understand the need to remove those when they are still used > > (albeit not as much as it could be), when they don't seem to cause > > maintenance problems (compared to, say, Kerberos...). [1]: > > > > Well

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Jeremy Bicha wrote: ... > A few months ago, I talked with mpt about GNOME Online Accounts being > added to Ubuntu's version of gnome-initial-setup. I believe his > opinion was that the app itself should offer the "add a new account" > feature instead of the Initial Setup or Settings apps. ... I

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... >> > This is because we never specified a way to get third party keys stored >> > inside GOA as part of a process to get third party modules to it. >> >> If apps could provide their own keys that would certainly change the >> picture (I didn't actually know it was a

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > GNOME apps are not, and were never the only consumers of the gnome- > online-accounts capabilities, There's been a rather big grey area around Online Accounts. The UX was always designed as a system service, for use by the core apps, but we never enforced this, partly

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

[Responding selectively, this thread is getting long.] Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... >> The main factor has always been about how we handle identity. If we >> give online accounts access to 3rd party apps, we're giving them >> access to the GNOME keys. They appear as "GNOME" to online providers >>

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... >> This approach isn't new, and you can read more detail here: >> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts/Goals >> > > I know the rationale. I never particularly agreed with it, because it felt > like an ex post rationalisation about not having third party

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > Removing GNOME Documents from the release is fine. The problem is that > as it is removed from the release, it's an excuse for GNOME Online > Accounts to remove the "Documents" category. My perspective: it's not great for our users if we have a Documents switch in the

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote: ... >> We have a rule though: the account types exposed in >> gnome-online-accounts must be used by at least one core application. >> It's a good rule because it doesn't make sense to have settings in >> control-center for apps that aren't installed

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Christopher Davis wrote: ... > As the new maintaner I would be against making Documents a Google Drive > client, or at least > a Drive-specific one. I was just raising further Google Drive integration as one possible direction to explore - I'm not specifically pushing for it. (My recollection

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > We are currently in the 3.31.x / 3.32 development cycle. Once the > > GNOME 3.32 release is done, starting from 3.33.1, I will be removing > > the GNOME Documents specific integration points from GNOME Online > > Accounts because we no longer encourage distributors

Re: App menu retirement: outstanding MRs

Jeremy Bicha wrote: ... > > > The Videos change would also require a great deal of work > > I thought it was just shuffling some menu items around...? > > My merge request was incomplete. It didn't handle the Python console > menu for instance. I submitted it anyway in case it would help someone

App menu retirement: outstanding MRs

Hi all, With a little over three weeks until UI freeze, I wanted to share a summary of the outstanding tasks for the app menu retirement initiative [1]. Every one of the target apps now has an MR to retire the app menu (great work everyone!) The challenge now is to get them all merged in time.

Re: Annual GNOME Bugzilla statistics for 2018 (One last time)

Andre Klapper wrote: ... > one last quick look at some basic GNOME Bugzilla activity in 2018. It's the end of an era! Thanks Andre. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Re: GitLab postmortem

Hey Carlos, The GitLab transition has been really positive from a design perspective. I would definitely say that our work feels easier and more productive than it was. I think that GitLab is also helping us to maintain a healthy design team. Some highlights: - It's allowed us to migrate all

Help wanted with the shell's top bar

Hi all, Back in 3.26 we introduced semi-transparency to the shell's top bar. On the design side we were never all that happy with where the UI landed and have wanted to improve it since then. However, we've been unable to make any progress. We don't want to have another release with the current

Re: App menu retirement: progress update

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 17:09, Allan Day wrote: > > gnome-multi-writer > > Removed in master. Thanks Richard! To make sure, in Multiwriter's case there should be a primary menu with the following items: Import ISO File.

Re: App menu retirement: progress update

Alberto Fanjul Alonso wrote: > > gitg has issue filed at least https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gitg/issues/141 Thanks Alberto and Jan, I've added these issues to the tracker. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

App menu retirement: progress update

Hi everyone, Hopefully everyone should be aware of the ongoing initiative to retire application menus . It's almost a month since I announced the initiative, so I wanted to provide a progress update. The headline is that 23 out of 62 apps have

Retiring app menus - happening now!

Hi all, Thanks to everyone who contributed to the previous thread on this subject. I've now started filing issues against individual modules. This is being tracked here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/Initiatives/issues/4#affected-projects There are a lot of modules to cover, so help would be

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Allan Day wrote: ... > > With regard to dropping the 'quit' action, is there any guidance for > > background applications? That is, apps where closing all windows does > > *not* exit the application, but the explicit 'quit' action does. ... GIven that this is only relevan

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Florian Müllner wrote: > > With regard to dropping the 'quit' action, is there any guidance for > background applications? That is, apps where closing all windows does > *not* exit the application, but the explicit 'quit' action does. Sorry for the slow reply - it's been a busy week. This

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 12:54, wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > It's faster to access for users, has terser explanations (no need to > > create sentences to describe actions) and it's usually better updated > > as it lives in the code, as opposed to being

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Christian Hergert wrote: ... > > "There is no need for the Quit menu item and the recommendation is to > remove it from all locations." > > - What about applications that have multiple windows? It seems > cumbersome to track down all your windows to ensure the application exits. My answer right

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > Putting aside the issue of outdated user docs, > > Well, it's a pretty big factor here. Can't we just remove out of date user docs? I realise that my line of reasoning is somewhat hypothetical here, but if there are issues with the user docs, we ought to fix them.

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Nathan Graule wrote: ... > I feel like having the primary menu hidden in an in-window navigation app > would be a regression from current, as a primary menu may apply anywhere, and > having the user modify (and especially here, undo) application state in order > to access a particular menu

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > ... The keyboard shortcuts dialogue in Videos is invaluable. > > Its contents used to be in the README file, which users wouldn't see, > the user documentation still shows the old interface (from 4 years > ago), and I'd rather not rely on user docs if I can help it.

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Alexandre Franke wrote: > Allan Day wrote: > > To be honest, I'm not sure how successful the keyboard shortcut windows > > have been and I suspect that they're not being used a great deal. > > What are you basing this on? Anecdotal evidence, primarily - my own us

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Andre Klapper wrote: ... > Personally I've always wondered how the "Keyboard Shortcuts" item > potentially duplicates dedicated pages in some user docs > It would certainly be good to have a coordinated strategy. One obvious question is whether to list shortcuts in a separate section or

Re: Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Adrien Plazas wrote: ... > What about updating the name ofthe "Keyboard Shortcuts" entry? The windows they trigger also contain gestures and in Games they also contain gamepad controls, making them being about way more than keyboards. > > "Shortcuts" is a simple replacement but any other idea is

Retiring app menus - planning for 3.32.0

Hi all, As previously discussed, we're planning to retire app menus this development cycle. The aim is to remove all application menus by 3.32.0. I've written some updated guidelines for the initiative , and I'd appreciate it

Re: No app menu changes for GNOME 3.30, please!

Isaque Galdino wrote: > > Humm, from [1], I understood we could start the migration. > "Summer 2018 > (...) > Apps can start migrating during the 3.30 cycle > Fall 2018 > (...) > 3.30 ships with app menu support in the shell, but most apps don't use it > anymore " I know that's what

No app menu changes for GNOME 3.30, please!

Hi everyone, I've noticed some apps have started removing their app menus, or copying their app menu items elsewhere. Please, don't make any changes to your menus yet! Unless we have a mass migration over a single cycle, we'll end up with a complete mess. The plan that I previously sent to this

Re: GNOME Goal proposal: app menu retirement

Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list wrote: ... > this seems to be aimed to applications which use header bar in the > title bar. I suppose this doesn't cover the applications which do not > use anything like that, does it? I've added a few notes about what to do if your application has a menu bar.

GNOME Goal proposal: app menu retirement

Hi everyone, We've been talking for a while about removing app menus, and the designs have now matured to the point where we can propose a concrete plan. Specifics can be found on the GNOME goal page: https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/AppMenuRetirement Those of us on the design side

Re: Documentation - language default

Michael Hall wrote: ... > Is the design for the site used on > https://people.collabora.com/~meh/gdd/index.html#getstarted still valid? As valid as it ever was... It was primarily meant as a proof of concept, particularly in terms of whether we could produce a decent site

Re: Documentation - language default

Michael Hall wrote: ... >> I've been involved in quite a few discussions >> about GNOME's developer documentation over the years, and have done a >> fair amount of work on developer documentation design in the past [1] >> (this came out of a meeting we had at GUADEC in 2016),

Re: Documentation - language default

Michael Hall wrote: ... > We have a project > on GNOME's Gitlab, a Telegram channel, and have been trying to hold regular > meetings on it. This is all news to me... it would have been good to have heard about the initiative sooner - I've been involved in quite a few

Re: Documentation - language default

Michael Hall wrote: ... >> Some of these are within reach, although as Bastian pointed out, >> having the necessary infrastructure has been a stumbling block in the >> past. > > We've settled on Who is "we"? Where is the planning and discussion happening for this? > using

Re: Documentation - language default

Emmanuele Bassi wrote:>: ... > This was the conclusion of the 2013 DX hackfest: > > https://treitter.livejournal.com/14871.html ... > - the announcement was made without resourcing, in the *hope* somebody > would turn up I don't think that's entirely true - my recollection

Re: Documentation - language default

Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Some of you may be aware that we have started a documentation effort in > order to give application developers a proper set of documentation for them > to write applications. I'm not aware of this. Can you provide some more information? (Who's

3.28 Release Notes

Hi everyone, The Engagement Team is about to start work on the release notes for 3.28. If you know of any changes that ought to be mentioned, please add them to the wiki page: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentyseven/ReleaseNotes If you are in any doubt about whether to mention a change or

Please add items to the 3.28 release notes page

Hi everyone, The Engagement Team is starting the release notes process a little early for 3.28. This is partly to support the release videos that Bastian Ilso does, which require information about the release and have a long lead time. So, if you know about any features that are going to be in

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > This raises the question of who is going to review the currently > insufficient-bordering-on-useless code of conduct that we have for > GNOME online services and, more generally, for the community? ... As you know, I'm also on the Foundation Board

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert > subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board > is still working on and that I hope I'll see in my lifetime]. ... Small clarification - it's the working

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > I don't think that applications such as Calendar, Contacts, or finding > and reminding apps should be removed from the requirements for a well- > rounded, default desktop. How they're installed is a technical question > that's not relevant to the

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's > > not a flatpak would be part of the image, and therefore unremovable? > > I've been looking at this

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > > This does not mean that gnome-screenshot should be made unremovable, > but it definitely needs some additional thought. > Documentation is another factor to consider. Currently, if you look up how to take a screenshot, the docs tell you to use the

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

Matthias Clasen wrote: ... > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's not a flatpak would be part of the image, and therefore unremovable? I've been looking at this issue

Re: Application name strings consistency

Hi all, Having spent some time studying this issue, I think it's best to keep the app names stable and improve how we provide more detailed information about each app (particularly the program name and developer). I've written up my research and a set of proposals on the wiki page I mentioned

Re: Application name strings consistency

Jeremy Bicha wrote: >>The other thing we can do in Software is think >> about making the developer more prominent. > > Like using "GNOME Files" in GNOME Software as was suggested by > everyone in this thread who expressed a preference? I'm thinking more of what you often see

Re: Application name strings consistency

Matthias Clasen wrote: ... > But names also need to sufficiently identify the named item. Ending up > with 5 "Clocks" and 4 "Maps" in gnome-software isn't really the best user > experience. > ... I don't see that issue. Allan

Re: Application name strings consistency

Alexandre Franke wrote: ... > > 1. App names should be consistent. > > 2. We generally don't expect users to know what GNOME is. > > 3. There are other, better, places we can advertise the project, if > that's > > what we want to do. > > That’s for the name used in GNOME

Re: Application name strings consistency

Michael Catanzaro wrote: ... > * Maps appears as GNOME Maps in Software, Maps in about dialog >> * Clocks appears as GNOME Clocks in Software, Clocks in about dialog >> * Music appears as GNOME Music in Software, Music in about dialog >> * Software appears as GNOME

Re: Updating GNOME Goals?

Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > > I have a list of about 12 apps that don't have search providers and > > probably should. I'd love for us to make some progress on that - > > would it make a good goal? > > Let's fix the search providers infrastructure first. They're unusable > on

Re: Updating GNOME Goals?

I have a list of about 12 apps that don't have search providers and probably should. I'd love for us to make some progress on that - would it make a good goal? Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

GNOME 3.26 release notes

Hi everyone, UI freeze is upon us, so now's a good time to think about release notes! Please provide information about any user or developer changes that have been made this development cycle, by adding them to the wiki page: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentyfive/ReleaseNotes Don't worry

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:36 PM, wrote: ... > We need a much better migration plan than that. If we don't have a script > to migrate Bugzilla issues, comments, and attachments to our new GitLab > instance, then we should not be considering using GitLab's issue tracker at >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Shaun McCance <sha...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 14:22 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > > The outcome of this evaluation process is that we are recommending > > that GNOME sets up its own GitLab instance, as a replacement for > &g

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Alexandre Franke <afra...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > > In recent months we have got together to examine the possibilities for > > GNOME’s development infrastructure. We’ve spent a lot of time on this, > &

Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

complete knowledge and we would like to hear questions and comments. At the same time, we do ask that members of the community approach this proposal with an open mind: please read the wiki pages and try to resist making assumptions about GitLab without familiarising yourself with it. Yours, Allan Day

Re: Mycroft GNOME Shell Extension & Request to join the community

Hey Rahul! Rahul Mehra wrote: ... > I recently released the Mycroft AI Gnome Shell Extension for the Gnome > Shell Desktop Environment. The shell extension is a front end to > Mycroft AI which can be described as an open source digital assistant > for the Linux

Re: Paperwork : a personal document manager (scanned and PDFs)

Hey Jerome! Great to hear from you, and welcome to the GNOME project! Jerome Flesch wrote: ... > (sorry if it's not the correct mailing-list for this kind of discussions) > > On Github, someone told me that there is someone else in the Gnome > design team working on mockups

3.26 Feature Planning

Hi everyone, If any of you are planning features for the next GNOME release, feel free to add them to the list on the wiki: https://wiki.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/FeaturePlans This is mostly for downstreams and partners, so they can get advance notice of what's being worked on. It doesn't do

Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: ... > That was what I would have said, if Simon didn't put it so eloquently. > So +1 for a permissive license for the artwork itself, we can control > its usage through the GNOME trademark. > Thanks for the contributions

Re: Final call for the 3.24 release notes!

wrote: ... > I'm currently writing up the release notes for 3.24, and would like to >> have the text finalised next week. If you know of anything that should be >> included, now's the time to add it to the wiki: >> >>

Final call for the 3.24 release notes!

Hi all, I'm currently writing up the release notes for 3.24, and would like to have the text finalised next week. If you know of anything that should be included, now's the time to add it to the wiki: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentythree/ReleaseNotes We particularly need details for the

Release notes for 3.24 are open!

Hi everyone, UI freeze is just under two weeks away, so now's a good time to think about what we want to put in the release notes for 3.24. If you know about anything that might be interesting to users or developers, please add it to the wiki page:

Re: Thoughs about communication

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: ... > My two cents, and bear with me on my slight rant - I really hate the idea > of depending on a web app like riot. It's like admitting that we've lost > the whole application space and that we're going browser. I

Re: Thoughs about communication

I agree with pretty much everything you've written here, Emmanuele. Just one comment... On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: ... > >> pros/cons irc: > >> > >> pros: > >> > >> - is widespread > >> - integrated in gnome environment (bots, bugzilla) > > > > I

Re: Thoughs about communication

Alberto Fanjul Alonso wrote: ... > Do anybody though about trying new services for communication? > > - signal https://whispersystems.org/ > - telegram https://telegram.org/ > - matrix.org http://matrix.org/ > - gitter https://gitter.im/ > - Rocket.Chat

UX features for 3.24

Hi everyone! Below is a list of UX features that would be great to have from a design point of view. I thought I'd share it, in case it helps with 3.24 planning. It's not a complete list and I think that some of them are already being worked on. It would be really great to have a bunch of these

3.22 Release Notes: Final Call!

Hi all, We'll be freezing the 3.22 release notes in the next day or two, so if you have anything that should be added to them, now's the time. Just add the details to: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentyone/ReleaseNotes Thanks, Allan ___

Re: Maybe deprecating libgweather

Giovanni Campagna wrote: ... > Any comments / opinions? > The dropdown list of search results that libgweather provides isn't great, so +1 from me. Allan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Release Notes for GNOME 3.22

Hi everyone! 3.22 is getting scarily close, so it's time to start thinking about the release notes. If you have worked on any user or developer visible changes that will be included in the release, please list them on the wiki page: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentyone/ReleaseNotes Don't

Re: GNOME Photos plans for 3.22

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: ... >> * Import from device: Importing images from cameras, SD cards and >> USB sticks [3]. >> >> This is another thing that has, so far, been missing from the >> content applications, and I think it is a crucial

Re: Release notes time!

We are starting to write the release notes now, so please add any changes to the wiki if you haven't already! Allan On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi everyone! > > The 3.19.x cycle is drawing to a close. With the UI freeze behind us, it is

Re: 3.20 Test Days

Hello! The third and final test day of the 3.19.x series is scheduled for next Monday, March 7. The test days have been really useful, but we do need more volunteers to help out. Instructions on how to conduct the tests are provided on the wiki [1], and there is a page set up for collecting

Release notes time!

Hi everyone! The 3.19.x cycle is drawing to a close. With the UI freeze behind us, it is time to think about all the cool stuff that will be released with 3.20. So, please spend a minute to add any user or developer facing changes to the wiki page:

Re: 3.20 Test Days

, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > For this cycle, I wanted to make sure that we do a more thorough job of > testing prior to release. To that end, I've scheduled three days where I > plan to do testing. > > The idea is to do a simple walk through of

Remembering Thomas Wood

Hi everyone, As some of you might have heard, Thomas Wood passed away last month. This is extremely sad news for those of us who knew him: he was a great guy, who was always supportive of the GNOME project. There's a short post about Thomas on gnome.org:

3.20 Test Days

For this cycle, I wanted to make sure that we do a more thorough job of testing prior to release. To that end, I've scheduled three days where I plan to do testing. The idea is to do a simple walk through of the release, as a new user would experience it, making notes and taking screenshots along

Re: New GNOME goal: shortcuts windows

Hi everyone! A little update on how this goal is going! 14 apps have been given shortcut windows so far. These are: Boxes Builder Clocks Documents Eye of GNOME Evince Files gedit Logs Maps Photos Polari Settings Videos That's pretty good progress! In terms of outstanding work, I count around 8

  1   2   3   >