On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 20:12 +0900, Takao Fujiwara - Tokyo S/W Center wrote:
> > I don't think any solution is really right at this time. Neither > > solution is ideal, and we add hacks that are visible to the user (env > > vars) that we have to keep supporting in the future, and hacks that > > doesn't fully fix the issue. And all this is for something that is > > scheduled for replacement. > > Thanks for your reply. Now I agreed with your point and also I feel it's > quite difficult to fix this problem fully in the current nautilus and > gnome-vfs without gvfs. > However my point is a slightly different from yours. I think gvfs is a new > feature and currently gnome-vfs has this bug. I completely agree gvfs will > resolve almost problems against gnome-vfs but e.g. there are no solutions > when I want any fixes in three months. I haven't thought to provide full > supports for samba of equal gvfs at the moment but I'm asked to fix the > critical problems with samba. > If I think the previous version of GNOME, e.g. 2.6, it may be difficult to > use gvfs since backports something will be needed. > But I understood it's not good for you to hack the visible env values because > those env values won't be used once gvfs is available. > > I don't find which resolutions I should take. > What do you think this kind of patches are applied by each vendors and the > vendors will maintain the patches by themselves until gvfs is available but > the patches are not integrated in nautilus/gnome-vfs head and/or branch? Are > there any concerns/suggestions in your side? I think carrying a vendor patch for this seems like a good idea. > When is the target to release gvfs? The target is the next (major) release of glib. The exact date is unknown, but a guess would be to see a stable release of it in 11 months or so. -- nautilus-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
