On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:50 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Colin Walters wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Dave Neary <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If we hard-code what GNOME supports into the design, when the needs > >> evolve then we need a centralised decision for each new need. Better to > >> provide a way for applications to integrate with system settings, > > > > These aren't applications, and no - we don't want to encourage apps to > > drop things in system settings. > > There is a world of distance between "disallow", "allow, but discourage" > and "encourage". > > I definitely think that there's value in having a firm hand over > preferences, and (say) defining all of the top level preference > categories - I also think there's value in allowing applications to add > preferences inside a given panel, and providing firm guidelines for when > that's appropriate and how to do it well. > > > As far as helping out extension authors - yes, I think that has value, > > but it's not as important as moving GNOME away from the "bucket of > > parts" model is. > > For something like this, I have a feeling we may only get one chance. If > you don't allow any differentiation on top of GNOME, there is at least > one distribution that will just do preferences differently & ignore > control-center. And I can imagine that future environments along the > lines of moblin, MeeGo, Maemo, etc will end up redoing the preferences > from scratch, rather than building on the gnomecc work.
No, they would probably end up making the headers available, and build on that. I don't see the problem here, if they actually intend on replacing most of the work, they'll probably be patching out some of the panels, and modifying some others. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
