Re: Let's kill gnome-common!

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 10:08 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Could you give some context and explanation on this? I could take the > gnome-autoar, but need to know why this is wanted and the alternative > to gnome-common. When the wiki comes back:

Re: 3.27.90 tarball deadline extended

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 13:57 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi developers, > > We're getting closer, but we're not yet at a point where we can > recommend that you try generating release tarballs with BuildStream and > expect it to work. So I have to reluctantly recommend that you use >

Re: Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 14:31 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > > I'll use one specific anecdote. On October 30, the Autotools build > files were removed from at-spi2-core. The accompanying JHBuild > moduleset update switching it to use meson was pushed by Philip > Withnall (thanks!) on

Re: Release team now using gnome-build-meta repository, not JHBuild

On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 07:34 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:25 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > Were you actually using JHBuild to run integrated system > > components > > (gnome-shell, gnome-session)? If so, how? I was not aware that > > that > > was even

Re: About lib version and git

Hey Daniel, On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:49 +0100, Daniel Garcia Moreno wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Philip Withnall .uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 12:17 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > > It doesn't really matter when you do it. There are some > >

Need a little help with libgweather yak shaving

Hello all, If you're feeling a little generous in this holiday season, do I have the project for you! I've spent the past week and a bit triaging libgweather's bugzilla, adding automated tests, and hooking up continuous integration so it's easier than ever to contribute to libgweather. But we

Re: Bugzilla migration tool user accounts

On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 05:43 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:48 AM Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@ndufresne.c > a> wrote: > > Le mardi 28 novembre 2017 à 14:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : > > > Hey, > > > > > > On

Re: Bugzilla migration tool user accounts

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 09:48 -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Le mardi 28 novembre 2017 à 14:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 04:21 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hi list, > > > > > > This is a

Re: Bugzilla migration tool user accounts

Hey, On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 04:21 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi list, > > This is about the migration tool for Bugzilla bug reports to GitLab > issues. See, for background, issues [1] and [2]. Currently, the > migration tool posts all the migrated issues and their associated >

Re: GNOME 3.27.2 RELEASED

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 20:15 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > Hi all, > > GNOME 3.27.2, the second unstable release in the 3.28 development > cycle, is now available. > > The porting of more modules to meson continues (which is great!), but > It's still causing some problems for some modules.

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 09:11 -0600, PWR PWR wrote: > Great discussion! I would encourage making things as customization > and personalized as possible, as a principle of open source software. Close enough: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ ___

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 11:05 +, Allan Day wrote: > Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > ... > > I don't think that applications such as Calendar, Contacts, or > > finding > > and reminding apps should be removed from the requirements for a > > wel

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 07:50 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > > Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > > ... > > > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. >

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 12:16 +, Allan Day wrote: > Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > ... > > > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > > > > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 11:23 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Jeremy Bicha > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Florian Müllner > org> wrote: > > >>

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 19:03 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi, > > Currently about half of the GNOME core apps are unremovable in GNOME > Software. It's the set of apps that are not new additions to core > over > the past two years, but at this point that's entirely arbitrary. So > we >

Re: Proposal for reducing the number of unremovable apps in GNOME Software

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 10:51 +, Allan Day wrote: > Matthias Clasen wrote: > ... > > I don't see the relation between sandboxable and unremovable. > > > > On an image-based OS, wouldn't it be the case that anything that's > not a flatpak would be part of the image,

Re: Include GNOME Usage in the future releases

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 16:27 +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We have been discussing for quite some time the inclusion of GNOME > Usage in the GNOME release, initially as a "demo". > > The project has been evolving quite fast and it is expected to have > an > Outreachy student

Bug in gitlab git repo redirection (was Re: Cannot access nautilus-sendto repository with HTTPS)

Hey, On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 20:28 +0800, 藍挺瑋 wrote: > Hello, > > It seems that all nautilus-* repositories on git.gnome.org became > inaccessible after nautilus was moved to GitLab. It is still possible > to > access these repositories with GIT or SSH protocol, but I hope we > can > keep HTTPS

Re: GitHub mirror creates contribution problems

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 13:12 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey, > > As expected the GitHub mirror might be costing us some contributions > rather than attracting more: > - none of the projects repositories mention that the mirrors are > mirrors > - the READMEs don't mention

Re: GNOME Mobile, or "GNOME on Purism's Librem 5"

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 18:14 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > 2017-09-05 17:46 GMT+02:00 Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>: > > > > - try integrating with (currently out-of-tree) OOM killer helpers > > to go > > away from application lifetime management by the use

Re: GNOME Mobile, or "GNOME on Purism's Librem 5"

On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 16:29 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > [ Please keep the CC list for replies ] > > So, is having a mobile UX something in scope for GNOME as a project > and the GNOME Shell? > Did anyone try to use GNOME on a smaller, phone-sized display > already? > Is there interest in the

Re: GitHub mirror creates contribution problems

hat's not viable. > On mar, 5 de septiembre de 2017 13:13 Bastien Nocera > <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > As expected the GitHub mirror might be costing us some > > contributions > > rather than attracting more: > > - none of the proje

GitHub mirror creates contribution problems

Hey, As expected the GitHub mirror might be costing us some contributions rather than attracting more: - none of the projects repositories mention that the mirrors are mirrors - the READMEs don't mention that they're mirrors either, or point to the upstream code, Bugzilla or code contributions -

Re: Nautilus has officially moved to GitLab

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > Should not be a big deal, basically all URLs are still working > (ssh://u...@git.gnome.org etc...) They don't, as per my mail. > and Carlos is not going to stop > looking at bugzilla bugs for now. This just means that people can > start

Re: Nautilus has officially moved to GitLab

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 16:30 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hey Bastien, > > I don't feel is neither wise or unwise. Do you have some specific > concern? > The only one we had was translations, and that seems to work. I think that this sort of failure, while we're working on stabilising the

Re: Nautilus has officially moved to GitLab

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:47 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > I guess you can expect this from the previous email, Nautilus has > moved and is now officially living in our instance of GitLab. > > Many thanks to Alberto Ruiz and Andrea Veri for resolving the issues > we were blocking on. Just before

Re: Updating GNOME Goals?

On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 12:20 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > I have a list of about 12 apps that don't have search providers and > probably should. I'd love for us to make some progress on that - > would it make a good goal? Let's fix the search providers infrastructure first. They're unusable on slow

Re: GNOME 3.25.91 released

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 11:38 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 11:13 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 01:04 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > GNOME 3.25.91, a late deve

Re: GNOME 3.25.91 released

On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 11:13 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 01:04 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > Hi, > > > > GNOME 3.25.91, a late development preview of the upcoming GNOME > > 3.26 > > release, is now availab

Re: GNOME Initiatives

On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 22:23 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 18:50 +, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Looks like GNOME Initiatives could use with some updating as well. > > There are some that are current and some that might need to be > > revisited. For instance: > > > >

Re: GitLab migration status and roadmap

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 11:02 +0200, Jens Georg wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > As you may know we continue working and pushing for our transition > > from Bugzilla and cgit to GitLab. > > Similarly to what we said in the previous mail thread, we are still > > in > > the pilot program phase, that

Re: Let's pause meson migration in preparation for the 3.26 release

On Sun, 2017-08-13 at 20:42 +0200, Petr Kovar wrote: > On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:21:05 -0500 > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Jeremy Bicha > > wrote: > > > If you want to do these things, please branch for 3.26 and

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 17:47 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> > wrote: > > What usually happened in the past was that the older version was > > used > > when such a problem happened, which would

Re: 3.25.90 will probably be delayed

On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 15:40 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi developers, > > I'm still struggling to get buildable release modulesets for > 3.25.90. > As you know, tarballs for that release were due Monday and the > release > was due Wednesday, but it's Saturday now and I haven't

Re: developer.gnome.org and meson

On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 08:33 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > Hi, > > developer.gnome.org is going to have some problems because for meson > modules 'ninja dist' does not include generated gtk-doc files in the > tarball. At least one maintainer is working around this by manually >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 07:56 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > This is done now in > > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc > > 0248dd05b17cb78252a788 >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require > > copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will > > become GPL3+, since the

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 11:50 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > I would also be supportive of a solution using Phabricator+cgit. Phab > for task management and patch review, since its task management is > more > powerful than gitlab’s, and its patch review workflow doesn’t have > the > problems of

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 11:21 +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > > +1: I am supportive of the initiative. > > After catching up with the discussion, my personal pros and cons are: > > Pros: > > - code browsing is better than cgit Seeing the history of a single file is unfortunately much harder than

Re: Porting applications to meson

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 21:29 +0200, Iñigo Martínez wrote: > Hi, > > I have been using meson for some months now at work, and I've taken > advantage of what I learned to port some applications' build systems > to it (gnome-todo[0], bijiben[1] and gnome-calendar[2]). While I'm > waiting for those

Re: Possible broken parser for slideshow background xml

On Sat, 2017-05-20 at 22:36 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello, > > > Somehow, the starting image from the transition display a blank > instead > as demonstrated by the screencast below: > https://luya.fedorapeople.org/videos/Screencast%20from%2020-05-17%201 > 0:32:45%20PM.webm I didn't

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of > those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But > that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License > file would have to reflect

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: > Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible > since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore > its License file would need to reflect that? No. nautilus' license says

gnome-settings-daemon/gnome-control-center under new ownership

Hey, At GUADEC 2010, Matthias asked Richard Hughes and I to help with gnome- control-center's port to GTK+ 3.x and update all the panels to the new control-center shell that Jon McCann had been polishing. Skip forward 7 years later, and I'm mostly doing patch reviews for features and redesigns

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hey, On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 14:22 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > [Written on behalf of Alberto Ruiz, Carlos Soriano, Andrea Veri, > Emmanuele Bassi and myself.] > > Please bear in mind that this is just a recommendation! We are not > claiming to have complete knowledge and we would like to hear >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:13 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > There are few by error. > The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and > the threatics part from gnome-builder. > However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the > past with git-archive-all

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> > wrote: > > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2- > > only > > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the ex

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:01 +0300, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > Hi, > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, > I > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to > GPLv3+. > > The codebase has files under

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 15:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > Original Message > > > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org > > > Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM > &g

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Original Message > > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org > > Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM > > UTC Time: May 17, 2017 12:10 PM > > From: had...@hadess.net > > To: Carlos Soriano

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 06:36 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: > Hey Bastien, > > Not sure if you read the wiki and the workflow we outlined in there, > since we mention how this works. You will realize that's not > necessary for you, neither a git-bz alternative since you will

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I think > it's > an easier workflow than attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket. > Once > the contributor has pushed a branch on the fork repo, all the rest > can > be

Re: [gnome-terminal/vte] What about to add an action to "Select All and Copy"?

On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 13:29 +, Debarshi Ray wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:08:24PM +0800, xiaofeng wrote: > > When I use the "Select All" action, the next step is always being > > "Copy", > > what about your next step? If that's the most case, what about to > > add an > > action

Re: Paperwork : a personal document manager (scanned and PDFs)

On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 15:56 +, jfle...@gmail.com wrote: > > It makes sense. > Since simple-scan is written in vala/C and Paperwork in Python 3, I > guess any common ground would have to be written in C/GObject. It's > going to take time ... Not sure if I will ever enough free time to do >

Re: Paperwork : a personal document manager (scanned and PDFs)

Hey, On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 12:54 +, jfle...@gmail.com wrote: > First of all, I want to thank you all for your comments and > feedbacks. I wasn't really expecting such a nice welcome :-) > > Regarding the HIG, you can actually also thank Mathieu Jourdan ( http > s://github.com/mjourdan ). He

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Sat, 2017-04-29 at 12:06 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>  > wrote: > > Are you saying you reverted jhbuild module changes, without > > notifying > > the committer, because there's

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 10:19 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>  > wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 00:37 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > >  On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Peter Hutterer >

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 00:37 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Peter Hutterer  > wrote: > > I will, but I'll keep the two parallel for at least a release or > > two.  > > If you > > need me to add anything specific to keep continuous

Multimedia keys API regression in gnome-settings-daemon 3.24

Hey, After splitting up gnome-settings-daemon in small independent daemons for the GNOME 3.24 release, making it more robust and easier to debug, a regression was discovered in gnome-settings-daemon's multimedia keys plugin, which handles, well, multimedia keys and offers up an API for

Re: GNOME Logo Licensing

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 12:43 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 00:52:25 +, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > There has been many instances of us protecting our brand by asking > > people to > > stop using our logo for commercial purposes, CC-BY-SA/LGPLv3 does > > grant > > precisely

Re: Improving the way we build nightly apps

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 11:44 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > So far, we have this gnome-nightly-apps repository which contains > copies of the flatpak manifests for a bunch of gnome apps. That is > redundant and suboptimal. Recently, flatpak has gained the ability to > find manifests in git

Re: Sick day today

On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 05:55 -0500, Carlos Soriano Sanchez wrote: > Got down again At least it's a sick note, not a rant like Behdad sent to the wrong list ;) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Re: Librsvg 2.41.0 is released

On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 01:23 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > I'd be very careful in framing this issue in absolute terms like > you've been doing. For instance, I think you need to be explicit in > saying you're speaking with your Fedora packager hat on. Does it matter when, when pushed to master

Re: meson ground rules!

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 11:07 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > Some GNOME modules have started to experiment with switching to the > meson build system instead of Autotools. Personally, I want to > encourage this; even though as a project we haven't come to any > consensus on whether we

Re: File roller extracting with double click, bug/feature ?

On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 16:58 -0500, Baptiste Saleil wrote: > Thanks for the link to the blog post (thus the explanation to disable > the feature). > > So you mentioned that "Extract here" should not be available. The "Extract here" from file-roller, further down the menu, shouldn't be there. The

Re: File roller extracting with double click, bug/feature ?

On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 16:07 -0500, Baptiste Saleil wrote: > Again, I was never prentious enough to say that someone is stupid. I > only talked about a feature that I, personally, find "stupid", I > never talked about an actual person and I never would. It's still not constructive. > To go back

Re: File roller extracting with double click, bug/feature ?

On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 13:12 -0500, Baptiste Saleil wrote: In passing, I'm not a native english speaker.Maybe you took personally the "you" in my last sentence, it was a general "you" meaning the users and not the developers. Maybe I should have said "If one wants..."

Re: File roller extracting with double click, bug/feature ?

Hello Baptiste, On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 12:00 -0500, Baptiste Saleil wrote: > Hi all. > > File roller extract my archives in current directory by double click > since 3.22 > Is this a bug or a feature ? > > If it's a feature, is there a bug report or discussion I can track to > understand why

Re: Proposal for Gnome Goal (was Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products)

On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 10:18 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 11:53 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote: > > Would a GNOME-goal to ensure that every project follows the Build > > API > > help > > here? > > > What do the meson developers think about the Build API? > > I think I

gnome-settings-daemon now split up

Hey, gnome-settings-daemon 3.23.2 is now released. The major change is that instead of launching a single big daemon, gnome-session will now launch a number of smaller daemons. Eventually, those daemons will be started as needed (through timers, or D-Bus autostart) via systemd --user, as

Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 09:33 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > Hello, > this is a heads up that the evolution-data-server, evolution, > evolution-ews and evolution-mapi products will switch from Autotools > to > CMake for the 3.23.1 release. The email doesn't explain the most important part though.

Re: GNOME 3.22.0 newstable tarballs due (and more) (responsible: mclasen)

Great stuff, thanks! > On 21 Sep 2016, at 21:21, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 21:11 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Matthias rebuilt the version set at least once today in order to pick >> up stragglers. Not sure why your releases didn't get in;

Re: GNOME 3.22.0 newstable tarballs due (and more) (responsible: mclasen)

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 19:06 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 00:00 +, Release Team wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > We would like to inform you about the following: > > * GNOME 3.22.0 newstable tarballs due > > * Hard Code Freeze ends > > > Hi, > > The following modules

Re: Gnome "opt-in" functionality.

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 10:23 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García wrote: > In Debian, 'apt-get remove --purge tracker' fixes the problem ;) It fixes nothing. You just work around whatever problem is either really happening on the system, or is one of those grand-mother tales, carried around in forums.

Re: gnome-user-share / g-s-d will require systemd --user in 3.22

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:19 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > I'm a downstream as well (Debian), which was caught by this change. > Note this particular change was merged after the official beta > release > and is only in Git atm, but it's targetted for 3.22. > Personally I'm a bit concerned that

Re: Maybe deprecating libgweather

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 17:33 +, Leslie S Satenstein wrote: > I found that the Openweather extension maintained by  Jens Lody > suited me better than the Gnome version. So much so that its the one > I recommend to other Gnome users What "GNOME version" are you talking about?

Re: upcoming "systemd --user" dependency in gnome-settings-daemon

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 13:05 +0200, Jens Georg wrote: > > > > This landed in gnome-settings-daemon, vino, rygel and gnome-user- > > share. > > > > I'll make release for that first and last modules. Hopefully the > > other > > 2 will see releases for the beta release this week, otherwise > >

Re: upcoming "systemd --user" dependency in gnome-settings-daemon

On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 18:06 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Hey, > > "systemd --user" has been enabled in Fedora 24 beta, which will ship > with GNOME 3.20. For GNOME 3.22, I'd like to make some changes in > gnome-settings-daemon, first in the sharing plugin, then in

Re: Maybe deprecating libgweather

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 10:19 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > Giovanni Campagna wrote: > ... > > Any comments / opinions? > > > > The dropdown list of search results that libgweather provides isn't > great, so  +1 from me. I've wanted libgweather to move to using

Re: Gnome Flatpak build system, descriptions and questions

On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:48 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 10:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 10:29 -0400, Shaun McCance wrote: > > > > > > Don't all maintainers already use signed tags for releases? > > No. I used to do this, but stopped a couple

Re: Gnome Flatpak build system, descriptions and questions

On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 09:43 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On tor, 2016-08-25 at 17:29 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On 25 August 2016 at 16:29, Alexander Larsson > > wrote: > > > > > > However, it would > > > make more sense for each individual application developers to

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 16:55 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote: > For long time I already want/plan to merge gnome-screensaver into > gnome-flashback. It will give more freedom to make needed changes > without affecting any other users and/or sessions that still use > gnome-screensaver. So I guess I

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Hi; > > On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty > wrote: > > So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express > > concern > > with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of >

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote: > > On 21/07/16 14:03, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express > >

Re: gnome-screensaver: Up for grabs?

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote: > Hi all, > > So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern > with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of > forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work > better for

Re: Multi DPI user interface

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 23:23 +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > Well, 3 options with the other one being to have "A" and "B" content > be > placed in individual files, i.e. Screenshot - 2016-07-19 - 12:34 - > LVDS1.png and Screenshot - 2016-07-19 - 12:34 - HDMI1.png, each one > with > their correct

Re: Multi DPI user interface

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 23:03 +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Hi, > > Over at mutter we've been working towards supporting proper multi DPI > setups when running GNOME using Wayland. Proper multi DPI means to > support having multiple monitors where two or more monitors have > significantly different

Re: nautilus-sendto 3.8.4

On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 12:49 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Sun, 2016-06-12 at 23:31 +, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > About nautilus-sendto > > = > > > > Easily send files via mail > > > > News > > > > &g

Re: nautilus-sendto 3.8.4

On Sun, 2016-06-12 at 23:31 +, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > About nautilus-sendto > = > > Easily send files via mail > > News > > > - Fix build with GCC 6 > - Updated translations While I appreciate the bug fixes, note that this module still has both a maintainer and

Re: Enabling builddir != srcdir by default in jhbuild

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 13:11 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 23:50 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > [ Picking this up again ] > > > > I've been spending the last couple of days fixing modules on > > git.gnome.org (you may have noticed a co

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 15:53 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Yet this is what you're doing. If you want an application to be > > renamed, you'd better make sure that you can actually come up with > > a > &g

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 20:43 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:10:59PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > If you want an application to be > > renamed, you'd better make sure that you can actually come up with > > a > > good name, and argue

Re: Enabling builddir != srcdir by default in jhbuild

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 23:50 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > [ Picking this up again ] > > I've been spending the last couple of days fixing modules on > git.gnome.org (you may have noticed a commit or two from me on your > modules fixing builddir != srcdir issues); submitting bugs/patches to >

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 15:03 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2016-06-02 14:38 GMT+02:00 Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>: > > And for gnome-photos you expect a collection of photos? > > Jeremy raised valid concerns which I share and your response are > snide remarks. >

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 13:03 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2016-06-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>: > > gnome-games package in your distribution "gnome-games-app". There's > > already prior art in that case with epiphany, the web browser vs.

Re: GNOME Games source name

On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 21:56 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Adrien Plazas et> wrote: > > AFAIK the application is already distributed in Arch since 3.18 and > > as a > > Flatpak with the gnome-games name. > > No, it's not in Arch yet really.

Re: upcoming "systemd --user" dependency in gnome-settings-daemon

On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 13:01 +0300, Christian Hergert wrote: > On 05/12/2016 07:06 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > So, I intend to use systemd to launch each gnome-settings-daemon > > plugin > > as a separate service, which would be tracked, and relaunched > > through >

upcoming "systemd --user" dependency in gnome-settings-daemon

Hey, "systemd --user" has been enabled in Fedora 24 beta, which will ship with GNOME 3.20. For GNOME 3.22, I'd like to make some changes in gnome-settings-daemon, first in the sharing plugin, then in gnome- settings-daemon itself. Now === When I implemented the per-network sharing for

Re: GNOME Photos plans for 3.22

On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 07:50 +, Debarshi Ray wrote: > Hello everybody, > > GNOME 3.20 was a busy cycle for Photos, with a lot of activity > from new contributors, and we want to carry that momentum into > 3.22. While we have a roadmap [1] to list the priority bugs > and features for the near

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >