2012/9/21 Aaron J. Seigo <ase...@kde.org>: > if the "new" can be achieved by extending or building on galago, that would > seem to me to be a much better thing. > > and no, galago is not perfect. it's not even "great", but it is passable and > widely used and that gives it a lot of value. > > if it turns out that we can not indeed achieve truly useful things without > creating something completely new, we'll still need to support galago > notifications in Plasma Workspaces, and we'll still want a bridge to galago so > we don't lose integration with other workspaces (otherwise our app devs and > users will, rightfully, complain)
Exactly - and just to complete the story, I have been there before with inhibition - although KDE now uses its own standard, it still remains 100% back and forth compatible with fd.o's one. So I don't know where it came up that I planned to drop the existing standard, but (especially knowing where I come from) I never thought about it for a second. Aaron got it perfectly right, so I guess we can cut this particular part of the discussion here since we're debating over nothing, and everyone is saying the same thing. > so ... what are the things that can not be achieved by building on top of > galago? > >> GNOME3 notifications are quite good, implementing at least one concept long >> pursued by Notmart's vision (being able to specify which notifications >> should be kept and which notifications are irrelevant). To do this they had >> least expand galago spec. > > key word: expand. this ^. And (at least try to) upstream. > > -- > Aaron Seigo > > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel > _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
