On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 16:03 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 06.11.09 20:22, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote:
There is one problem with POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED. If you do it on a file
the kernel will drop it from its caches. This is generally what you want
if you just
Hi,
In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
2) Icons got removed from menus.
3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
1 and 2 were still configurable from gnome-appearance-properties, 3 was
not possible to
I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is thatdevelopers should
enable in Appearance menu some configurationoptions regarding this issue.
It is not so hard to implement.
Uros
---
Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men
is
+1
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:28 +0100, Uros Nedic a écrit :
I'm also concerned regarding that process. My proposal is that
developers should enable in Appearance menu some configuration
options regarding this issue.
It is not so hard to implement.
Uros
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Hi,
In GNOME 2.28 some default settings changed for the desktop:
1) In toolbar, text is next to icon instead of below.
2) Icons got removed from menus.
3) Icons got removed from action buttons in dialogs.
1 and 2 were still
I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved to a
tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak application?
I don't really see why we should disperse our efforts in two applications
with the same purpose and it only make things more confusing for the users
On
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
Well, I'll repeat what I said on the bug:
I agree with McCann, if someone wants to tweak their settings in
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
application?
A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
importance
Iain wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof s...@pvanhoof.be wrote:
Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can
immediately connect a signal to and get informed when something gets
added, removed and changed.
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
I would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
Well, I'll repeat what I said on the
Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 19:11 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 17:57 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 18:53 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 09:28 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
Surely apps should ship pre-indexed help
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
I would like to know if I'm the only
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
So if you agree/disagree with those
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:24 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:14 +0100, Olivier Le Thanh Duong wrote:
I agree with Xavier. In the bug report they say this should be moved
to a tweak application but isn't this capplet already a tweak
application?
A tweak
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:08 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:56 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:50 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
A tweak application is would be one that changes little-used and low
importance preferences.
The Appearance capplet includes three sections. Background is probably
most used, Font is of high importance (for accessibility) and
I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basicallyneed one
quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want icons'or 'we don't want
them'. Latter could be default if you like. If thiscommunity is not able to
implement this simple thing that means thatsomething is
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
icons'
or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
community is not able to
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:37 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
I do not see why we are debating about one simple thing. We basically
need one quite simple option where we would like to say 'we want
icons'
or 'we don't want them'. Latter could be default if you like. If this
community is not able to
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor rob.tay...@codethink.co.uk wrote:
Iain wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Philip Van Hoof s...@pvanhoof.be wrote:
Sorry but, with DBusGProxy you already have a GObject that you can
immediately connect a signal to and get informed when
you're missing the point: the option already exists in GConf. all that
is needed is a UI tweak utility that can be optionally installed.
Not sure I understand the discussion here. GNOME -had- UI to tweak
this option, and suddenly decided not to support configuring it in the
main desktop.
I
Hi,
Le dimanche 08 novembre 2009, à 02:16 -0500, Matthew Barnes a écrit :
I'd like to use Björn Lindqvist's GtkImageView widget [1] in Evolution
for displaying image attachments inline.
Evolution has been displaying image attachments inline on its own for
ages, but GtkImageView does it
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:01 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
I actually enjoy most of the new changes (I like the simpler menus),
but I miss being able to change the toolbar style. The 2.28
text-beside is nice, but I prefer the old text-under. Is that really
such a forbidden use case?
It's not
Hi Pierre-Luc,
Le mardi 27 octobre 2009, à 11:03 -0400, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin a écrit :
Hi,
I am slightly late for this but we'd like to add a dependency to
libchamplain in the 0.6 cycle (which corresponds to 2.29/2.30
timeframe).
Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually do
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.
I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this, since the
Interface options mentioned above have been
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jud Craft craft...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.
I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.
I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora 12 and
the Appearance Properties no longer allow you to do this,
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.
I think you may be mistaken. I'm running GNOME 2.28 on Fedora
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:05 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
I'd love to get comments from gthumb/eog people about this.
Also, what features of GtkImageView do you use? Should some of those
live in some way in gtk+?
I found a discussion with the EoG folks from a couple years ago.
Sounded like they
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
being able to rely on
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:46 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 13:27 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:24 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
It's not forbidden and in fact, in 2.28, you can still change this
option through the appearance capplet.
Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
usage has slowed down because
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
that shows that having none at all is
I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's
changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
achieved with status quo.
Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.
General anger is not something which need to be translated.I, for example, want
all best to GNOME and to this community.But, as far as I could see, some things
go in wrong way andI just would like to point on that.
I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and alsoI want to become one
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:51 +, John Carr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rob Taylor rob.tay...@codethink.co.uk
wrote:
One option is that some of this code could be merged into tracker
itself, if it is deemed useful, along with exposing
TrackerSparqlBuilder (which might be
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 14:23 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it.
Um, it doesn't work that way. I'm
2009/11/10 Bastien Nocera had...@hadess.net:
The reasons behind the move have been documented, and explanations given
on how to get the icons back.
Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
some study about impact of this decision. And I agree with rest that
asking
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
Except ~5 devs, I see nobody
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:08 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Since libchamplain is an external dep, you could actually do whatever
you want, but it's great to see you asking :-)
I want to make sure I am walking in the defined paths. :)
As far as I can tell, this seems reasonable and it could even
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
Bastien, I would like to have references like bugzilla bug numbers and
some study about impact of this decision.
This has all been posted on this list already and repeating doesn't make
sense. Search the archives, please.
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com
wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:36 -0500, Jud Craft wrote:
I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that it's
changed. Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
achieved with status quo.
Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
deal with community.
Thanks for being the true and only voice of the community.
Maybe
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:39 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
Except ~5 devs,
I really don't think making some imaginary stats up is going to help the
I didn't tell anyone to hack around it. There's a (bad) UI for reverting
the change called gconf-editor. If it's not good enough, people can add
features to gTweakUI or write their own.
I'm aware of gconf-editor. But saying a user has to go mess with the
keys is pretty much a dumping ground
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not
2009/11/10 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net:
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 17:00 +0200 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
So because there are maybe majority of happy (and ignorant) users, we
will ignore rather loud opposition to this change? Really nice way to
deal with community.
Thanks for being the
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/10 Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Xavier Claessens xclae...@gmail.com
wrote:
What I find totally insane is to not leave
Xavier Claessens wrote:
Can you please tell me what's gnome-appearance-properties if it is not
to tweak the appearance of the GNOME desktop?
+1
Stef
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
snip
It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+, without any
kind of prior notification to be able
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of
Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
give for something so easily fixable.
4 months isn't a single GNOME release cycle. How would they get
end-user feedback?
What about GNOME software
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 16:36 +, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
snip
It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox)
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
snip
It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
was an ISV for instance, or Firefox) which were using GTK+,
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:48 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Vendors had 4 months head-way to test for changes, and fix them. If 4
months isn't enough, I'm not sure how much advance warning we need to
give for something so easily fixable.
The issue here is too few people are running dev
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009, à 12:02 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat
There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/
Matthias, this is not a fair answer. It's a fact that
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Crozat
There's plenty of announcements of changes, every day, over there:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/svn-commits-list/
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
snip
It is quite simple : this change affected all ISV (we could say inkscape
Le 10/11/2009 18:18, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 17:36, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:23 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le 10/11/2009 15:23, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
snip
It is quite simple : this change
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Frederic Crozat fcro...@mandriva.com wrote:
There was no prior discussion on usability list and when people raised
concerns on it after the change was made (and even now) or how it was made,
they are being treated like children.
The developer is in charge of
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:03 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
It was posted to d-d-l, and Andreas blogged about it on Planet. I'm not
sure what else we can do.
Andreas blogged about it after the changes, on July 24, as GNOME Art
team (which sound strange, I would expect this kind of change
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:28 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:19 +, Thomas Wood a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens wrote:
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion!
I would like to know if I'm the only
Hmm.
This seems to turn into a flamewar with personal attacks.
Don't like that.
The Code of Conduct at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct states
Assume people mean well, and while we disagree on decisions itself
and/or their parameters (where, how and when it was discussed, decided
and
So instead of making this thread bigger, why don't people go to write a
'Interface' capplet, starting with what there was on the Interface tab?
If it's done correctly, we can even think about including it in
gnome-control-center! :)
On that topic, it strikes me as fairly logical to mix a new
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry, we are
sending Lennart to an empty island
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 15:41 +0100, Uros Nedic wrote:
I'm more than ready to help to improve the things and also
I want to become one of significant contributors, but first
I do not know how many developers GNOME have and its
responsibilities, I do not know how whole life-cycle goes,
etc. I
On Tue, 10.11.09 21:58, Rodrigo Moya (rodr...@gnome-db.org) wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
wow, I just googled, and yeah,
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
I do share your concerns.
I think the biggest problem in this story is not the change itself but
On 11/10/2009 10:58 PM, Guillaume Desmottes wrote:
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 10:18 +0100, Xavier Claessens a écrit :
So if you agree/disagree with those changes, please tell your opinion! I
would like to know if I'm the only one to be worried.
I think the biggest problem in this
2009/11/10 Rodrigo Moya rodr...@gnome-db.org:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:00 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Google for 'PulseAudio Hate' and then maybe try to understand what
dangerous road have GNOME project taken last two releases.
wow, I just googled, and yeah, you're right! but don't worry,
73 matches
Mail list logo
