On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46 AM, <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:55:17PM -0700, Peter Hosey wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 16:56:39, Scott Goldman wrote: > > > And from a personal usage standpoint I strongly believe that many users > would find this option exceedingly useful. > > > > I don't know about that, but you're not the first person to request this, > so we know at least that there are many users who want it. > > > > http://code.google.com/p/growl/issues/detail?id=193 > > I'm unable to "sign in" to contribute on that site, but if my login worked > I would star the item and make the following point: > > Analyzing my use of sticky notifications, I realize that each and every > time I come back to one on my screen, I'm then checking other sources of > info for when the notification was posted. > > This is in fact why I have not upgraded past Growl 1.2. One of my sources > of "when did that notification get posted" information is the logs viewed > via Console.app. The extremely chatty debug info about display rect > calculation logged by Growl 1.2.1 caused me to back off to 1.2 in order to > have the necessary timing info still in the log files by the time I > checked for it. At the time, I believe I suggested operational vs. debug > logging be done. > > Optional timestamps including dates in the sticky notifications would make > secondary checks for when the event happened less necessary for me. > > It also sounds like the rollup+log viewer approach would solve this for you as well though. I'm not convinced that time stamps on notifications are needed at all. Let's see how the log viewer + rollup works first. If there is still a need after that we can revisit this thread though. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
