Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:27 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
- KIO, GIO and GnomeVFS. KIO is the I/O framework used by KDE since,
at least, 1999. But the Gtk+ developers decided to go on their own and
implement GIO without talking to KDE developers. GIO was
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
A KDE developer (his nick is 'nf2', I can't remember his name)
Norbert Frese, but he is a GLib software stack developer (probably even a
GNOME developer) and is only recently working on KDE code, i.e. the bridge
you are referring to.
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:06 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
by the way: GIO implements various fd.o specifications - the
thumbnailing specification, the trash spec, the shared mime info spec,
etc. exactly like KIO does.
KIO and GIO
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 15:21 +0200, Kevin Krammer wrote:
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:06 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
by the way: GIO implements various fd.o specifications - the
thumbnailing specification, the trash spec, the shared
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 15:21 +0200, Kevin Krammer wrote:
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:06 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
by the way: GIO implements various fd.o specifications - the
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Vincent Untz wrote:
Nope. All versions are available on the website. See
http://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/ for example.
something that occured to me last night whilst striving for sleep: the website
could provide a convenient agregated set of
Hi,
Le mardi 29 avril 2008, à 16:54 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
more concretely, i propose:
* a 'mainline' area for adopted versions of specs
* a 'review' area for specifications that are through a given draft phase and
ready to move to mainline
* a 'drafts' area for
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:27 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
- KIO, GIO and GnomeVFS. KIO is the I/O framework used by KDE since,
at least, 1999. But the Gtk+ developers decided to go on their own and
implement GIO without talking to KDE developers. GIO was developed
while KDE was
Quoting Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:27 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
- KIO, GIO and GnomeVFS. KIO is the I/O framework used by KDE since,
at least, 1999. But the Gtk+ developers decided to go on their own and
implement GIO without talking to KDE
On Wednesday, 30. April 2008, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Long story short, it would be like this: if there is a fd.o spec for
what you are doing and you are not using it, your app/library won't
enter the official KDE/Gnome/whatever repository *unless* you provide
good reasons for not
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 16:54 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
i completely support an open repository (git, svn .. *whatever*) for the
specs
where anyone involved can work in a branch until it's ready to merge into
mainline. the merging would be done by the editors themselves. waiting on
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
at one point we must realize the fact that GNOME and KDE are built on
two very different platforms; sharing specifications is possible - even
welcomed, but sharing API is only possible at a very low level.
Thank you! Hearing someone actually say this is like a breath
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:30 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 16:54 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
i completely support an open repository (git, svn .. *whatever*) for the
specs
where anyone involved can work in a branch until it's ready to merge into
mainline. the
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Vincent Untz wrote:
I pretty much agree with this. Except that, from what I understand in
your mail, you want those areas to clearly appear in the repository. My
idea was to just have all specs in the repository, and then have a
simple file describing the status of
Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 10:48 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
at one point we must realize the fact that GNOME and KDE are built on
two very different platforms; sharing specifications is possible - even
welcomed, but sharing API is only possible at
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:06 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
by the way: GIO implements various fd.o specifications - the
thumbnailing specification, the trash spec, the shared mime info spec,
etc. exactly like KIO does.
KIO and GIO
Le mercredi 30 avril 2008, à 12:46 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Vincent Untz wrote:
I pretty much agree with this. Except that, from what I understand in
your mail, you want those areas to clearly appear in the repository. My
idea was to just have all specs in
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 10:48 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
at one point we must realize the fact that GNOME and KDE are built on
two very different platforms; sharing specifications is possible - even
welcomed, but sharing API is only possible at a very low level.
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
A KDE developer (his nick is 'nf2', I can't remember his name)
developed a GIO-KIO bridge which makes possible to use GIO plugins in
KIO. It was not accepted in KDE, I can't remember why.
timing, quality, readiness. there's no reason it
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 30 avril 2008, à 12:46 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
* it means havng multiple checkouts to see past accepted revisions; the
problem with this is that you may be targetting a historical release of a
spec; it's just convenient to
Le lundi 28 avril 2008, à 11:47 -0400, Rodney Dawes a écrit :
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 15:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
I've asked for the creation of a git repository to host all fd.o specs
(will make things much easier). I think it'd make sense to send commit
notifications to this
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 11:47 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 15:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
I've asked for the creation of a git repository to host all fd.o specs
(will make things much easier). I think it'd make sense to send commit
notifications to this list
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 15:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
I've asked for the creation of a git repository to host all fd.o specs
(will make things much easier). I think it'd make sense to send commit
notifications to this list since it will help people track the progress
and the changes.
well, the reason behind having all specs in one repo is to have them all
together, so that anyone wanting to do a change can get all of them from
the same place. Right now it seems to be hard to know where the source
of the spec is, so is there any way you could continue maintaining your
spec
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Toni Ruottu wrote:
spec as you do now but have the latest version always in the shared git
repo?
That is how people usually work with distributed version control tools.
while this is awesome for source code where forking and working on branches is
good for obvious
Le mardi 29 avril 2008, à 21:43 +0300, Toni Ruottu a écrit :
Untz, do you have a reason for preferring GIT over Bazaar? I'm not
saying GIT is bad, I just want the choices to be discussed. We ought to
choose the one that best fits our needs.
I don't care that much about the vcs, to be honest.
you specifically *don't* want specifications to fork and be worked on
randomly; there is a low rate of edit conflict; having a clearly canonical
version is critical
Ok. It may be that dvcs would we a wrong solution for a real problem.
What I'm really concerned about is how hard it is
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, you wrote:
you specifically *don't* want specifications to fork and be worked on
randomly; there is a low rate of edit conflict; having a clearly
canonical version is critical
Ok. It may be that dvcs would we a wrong solution for a real problem.
What I'm
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 15:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
I've asked for the creation of a git repository to host all fd.o specs
(will make things much easier). I think it'd make sense to send commit
notifications to this list since it will help people track the progress
and the changes.
Hi,
I've asked for the creation of a git repository to host all fd.o specs
(will make things much easier). I think it'd make sense to send commit
notifications to this list since it will help people track the progress
and the changes. What do people think?
An obvious alternative is to create a
30 matches
Mail list logo
