On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Milan Bouchet-Valat <[email protected]> wrote: > On jeu., 2011-03-24 at 23:41 +0100, Luca Ferretti wrote: >> Flash news from release team to our all brave developers. >> >> A member of release team known as *cough*Luca Ferretti*cough* was sure >> gsettings PATHs and gsettings IDs were the same, so he was also sure all >> GNOME 3 core apps were using the proper path. So he never sent any >> notice or filed bug report... >> >> But we don't want to blame his errors, we want to have a fine tuned >> GNOME 3 Desktop. A quick grep[1] shows about 15 basic modules using the >> wrong PATH. Patches are available here[2][3]. > Looking at the patches, I see people chose different conventions for id > and path. For example, the Shell uses the id org.gnome.shell, and > gnome-system-monitor uses org.gnome.gnome-system-monitor. This in turns > can lead to different paths: your patches use /org/gnome/gnome-shell > and /org/gnome/gnome-system-monitor. But this isn't consistent with the > id for the Shell (same problem with gnome-power-manager). > > Can we choose one of these conventions? Then, I think id and path should > have the same form when there's no reason to make it different. > > (Personally, I think /org/gnome/shell is better > than /org/gnome/gnome-shell because gnome- is redundant.) >
I'm definitely for having these all be consistent but I find it more consistent that all paths be of the format org.gnome.[application name] and /org/gnome/[application name]. This would mean leaving the "gnome-" prefix even though it does look redundant. I'd have no problem conforming to any convention though. Also, as Richard had asked, does this mean we have a freeze exception to make these changes? I'd be happy to make those changes to gnome-system-monitor if this is the case. Chris _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
