Re: Moving final mailman lists over to discourse

On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 18:45, Anastasios Lisgaras via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > On 10/20/22 20:48, Andre Klapper via desktop-devel-list wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 16:48 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > Are there plans to update the https://mail.gnome.org

Re: Is libgd still a thing?

Looking at the gnome-world moduleset, the following modules are still using libgd: - nautilus - evince - totem - gnome-photos - gedit Archiving libgd will likely have to wait, considering that all of these are core GNOME applications. Ciao, Emmanuele. On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 17:19, Andre

Re: Can we enforce beta release for the freeze

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 00:20, Shaun McCance wrote: > What I want is a discussion on how we can ensure beta releases happen in > the future. For example, can we do more to automate releases? Or (again, > for example), could we have an automated script that emails this list with > modules missing

Re: Let's improve our communication: Discourse

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 10:25, Milan Crha via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 14:33 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > and make contributing to GNOME more attractive to newcomers. > > Hi, > do you think the newcomers do not know how the

New GNOME versioning scheme

the user experience are going to be introduced progressively, so that we can refine and iterate over them in time, instead of dumping them in our users lap. ## Additional questions Feel free to discuss this topic on Discourse, and to reach out to the release team for additional clarifications.

Re: Regarding behaviour of Gnome and Fedora members

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 13:30, Ty Young via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > ...sorry, just read the xkcd link. That, IMO, does indeed violates > GNOME's Code of Conduct. There sure are a lot of people violating their > own project's inclusion and community standards...

Re: Is any GNOME project using Mapbox legacy classic tiles with the GNOME API key?

Could it be caused by users of Maps on some long term support Linux distributions, like Ubuntu 16.04/18.04, or RHEL7/8? Ciao, Emmanuele. On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:00, Marcus Lundblad via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi! > > As Mapbox has deprecated the old classic

Re: How to detect a gtk desktop programmatically

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 17:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I would worry about the future, though. I'm skeptical that updating to > GTK 4 will ever be possible (due to the removal of the foreign drawing > API that allows non-GTK apps to render boxes and buttons and such using > the GTK theme). So

Moving gdk-pixbuf-xlib out of gdk-pixbuf

Hi all; tl;dr: the gdk-pixbuf-xlib deprecated shared library now lives in its own, archived repository available at: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/gdk-pixbuf-xlib If you're explicitly enabling X11 support in gdk-pixbuf in your builds and/or packages and distributing the additional

Re: Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

On Fri, 13 Sep, 2019 at 10:21, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 10:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel- list wrote: Not every single problem we have in building a complex project like GNOME can be solved by a script; if it were, we wouldn't need maintainers, and y'all

Re: Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 19:08, Philip Withnall wrote: That sounds like something people are going to forget to do. Would it be possible to use computers to automate this? It's software: anything is possible. As to whether we can automate this **right now**, the answer is: no. I'm not going

Re: Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 22:40, Philip Withnall wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 19:14 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 19:08, Philip Withnall > wrote: > > That sounds like something people are going to forget to do. Would it be > possible to use

Re: Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 23:49, Michael Gratton wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 22:39, Philip Withnall > wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 19:14 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 19:08, Philip Withnall > >> wrote: > >>> T

Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

Hi all; the 3.34 release is out of the door, but before we go into the 3.35 development cycle, the release team would like to kindly ask **all** GNOME maintainers to send an email to release-t...@gnome.org (and possibly Cc: distributor-l...@gnome.org

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 17:12, wrote: > > I'm a little surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the elephant in > the room. The definition of "git" is not very inclusive: > What did I say, upthread, about falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy, and sticking to the topic of discussion? Do we

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

. >> >> Regards, >> Chris >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:12 AM, Pat Suwalski wrote: >> >> On 2019-04-25 9:58 a.m., Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote: >> >> If you cannot maintain even a semblance of a civil discourse, the door is >&g

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 14:54, Pat Suwalski wrote: > On 2019-04-25 6:43 a.m., Bastien Nocera wrote: > > It's non-gender neutral, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. > > > > See the master/maiden section of: > > >

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 18:27, Florian Müllner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:50 PM Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > > > You cut the part where I said the appindicator implementation should be > changed. :-) > > I thought you were referring to the client library, n

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 17:34, Florian Müllner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:36 PM Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > > > If the answer to status icons is to adopt/adapt the appindicator API, > I'm also fine with that; > > I'm not. The Statu

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Will Thompson wrote: > On the other hand: this API under its various names is already > widely-supported both by (non-GNOME) apps, and by widely-used desktop > environments – a virtuous cycle. In particular, several third-party, > non-free apps like Dropbox which

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:15, wrote: The dash seems like it might be a safer place to put things > than allowing applications to clutter the precious top bar. > Like every other solution for placing stuff into the overview, this fails to take into account menus created by status icons; the

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:29, Pat Suwalski wrote: > On 2019-03-25 7:19 a.m., Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote: > > Which would achieve nothing except, once again, shoving icons and menus > > into one of the most important pieces of screen real estate we have just &

Re: I believe we should reconsider our sys-tray removal

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 10:39, Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Can't GtkStatusIcon be modified to show icons in the top bar? > No. GtkStatusIcon encodes the XEMBED-based tray icon specification; this means that the application code is responsible for: - sending icon

Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 17:27, Petr Kovar wrote: > > There's also a group of people wanting to do something else for the > > developer site. I went to some of their meetings, but haven't had time > > to keep up. I don't know their status. > > Same here. I think if the developer site group

Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?

Hi Joanne; the switch to Meson for various libraries broke the expectations of library-web, which is used to populate developer.gnome.org. The scripts expect the HTML for the API reference to be in the release tarballs, but that’s not the case for Meson-generated dist archives. GTK and GLib use

Re: GNOME 3.32 milestone review

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 09:20, Allan Day via desktop-devel-list < desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Carlos Soriano wrote: > ... > > gnome-screenshot, retire app menu - Part of the GNOME initiative to > remove app menus. There is a MR, needs some review. Deadline 4th February, > UI freeze. >

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 11:40, Debarshi Ray wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:13:26PM +0000, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > Again, not a huge deal; sure, Documents is actually useful to navigate > > through the Google Drive contents???the Drive web UX has become > shockingly >

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 10:27, Debarshi Ray wrote: > The tl;dr here is that a lot of people care about political arguments > but nobody shows up to bear the burden of dealing with the code. > "Political" in the sense that you're not maintaining a leaf node in the dependency graph, that can come

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 09:24, Debarshi Ray wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:00:58AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I don't think that feature requests should be treated on the same level > > as existing, merged, features > > I can't change my theme, I can't change my fonts, no minimize

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 18:36, Debarshi Ray wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:49:55PM +0000, Emmanuele Bassi via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 14:21, Allan Day wrote: > > > If apps could provide their own keys that would certainly change the &g

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 17:55, wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > It is what is happening in GNOME Online Accounts in general. Pocket is > > disabled in Fedora 29, and there's a good chance that the mail > > configuration bits will be disabled in Fedora 30. > >

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 16:41, Allan Day wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... > >> > This is because we never specified a way to get third party keys > stored inside GOA as part of a process to get third party modules to it. > >> > >> If apps could prov

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 14:21, Allan Day wrote: > [Responding selectively, this thread is getting long.] > > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... > >> The main factor has always been about how we handle identity. If we > >> give online accounts access to 3rd party apps,

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 12:26, Allan Day wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > ... > >> This approach isn't new, and you can read more detail here: > >> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts/Goals > >> > > > > I know the rationale. I never p

Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 16:32, wrote: > We have a rule though: the account types exposed in > gnome-online-accounts must be used by at least one core application. > It's a good rule because it doesn't make sense to have settings in > control-center for apps that aren't installed by default. So

Re: Documents and core apps

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 16:59, wrote: > Release and design teams also don't want redundant apps in core, and > there is interest in somewhat reducing the number of apps in core. We > had been planning for several years to remove eog (obsoleted by > gnome-photos and to remove evince with

Re: GNOME Mastodon Instance?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 10:27, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 3:20 PM Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > Just to be clearer: once the GNOME Mastodon instance gets into a > federation, it'll need somebody to moderate > > the graph to bloc

Re: This video is dedicated to all of you

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 18:30, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 19:24 +0200, Alberto Salvia Novella via desktop- > devel-list wrote: > > https://youtu.be/ > > How is this person still allowed to post on d-d-l? > Yes, can we please enable some moderation? Not only this stuff is

Re: GNOME Mastodon Instance?

have the Code of Conduct committee (and, hopefully soon, a new code of conduct). Ciao, Emmanuele. On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 14:17, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > Hi Richard; > > I wouldn't be opposed to have a mastodon.gnome.org instance for GNOME > foundation members, but I'm not entirel

Re: GNOME Mastodon Instance?

Hi Richard; I wouldn't be opposed to have a mastodon.gnome.org instance for GNOME foundation members, but I'm not entirely sure about the security/moderation side of things: who's going to moderate the instance? We have people moderating mailing lists and a some level of moderation on IRC, but

Re: Documentation - language default

On 5 April 2018 at 14:36, Michael Hall <mhall...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2018 05:35 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > >> You can have the best documentation in the world — but if you don't have >> people working on the tooling and the actual integration between the >

Re: Documentation - language default

On 4 April 2018 at 19:39, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Some of you may be aware that we have started a documentation effort in > order to give application developers a proper set of documentation for them > to write applications. > > We need to optimize for one language rather

Re: Check your default window size!

On 20 March 2018 at 17:35, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 18:29 +0100, Alexandre Franke wrote: > > > > Somewhat related, since not too long ago (I’d say 3.26, maybe 3.24) > > Nautilus randomly forgets it’s size and will open a very small window > > (with the

Re: Let's kill gnome-common!

On 13 February 2018 at 11:17, Milan Crha wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 09:33 +, Philip Withnall wrote: >> porting the build systems of those modules to Meson is another >> legitimate way to port away from gnome-common. It would be the better >> choice in the long run for

Re: 3.27.90 tarball deadline extended

On 9 February 2018 at 14:36, Bastien Nocera wrote: > 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

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 11 December 2017 at 15:51, wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> >> I was providing my opinions on which issues should be blockers for GNOME. >> I'm not issuing demands here... Carlos is running this show. > > > I

Re: g_object_ref() now propagates types

On 8 December 2017 at 11:26, Philip Withnall wrote: > If anybody encounters any problems with this, please comment on the bug > report: > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790697 As a side note: I've started a full Continuous rebuild, so if there are projects

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 17:01, Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 18:49 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote: > a) See the second comment of >https://gitlab-test.gnome.org/mcrha/test/issues/2 >It shows like three lines of text (one line, then empty line, then >third

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 17:19, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On 12/07/2017 11:01 AM, Milan Crha wrote: >> >> b) How do I reply to a comment? > > > This one should be a blocker to migrating any more projects. > (1) Canned replies. I would rather stay with Bugzilla forever than

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 14:17, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> This raises the question of who is going to review the currently >> insufficient-bordering-on-useless code of conduct that we have for >> GNOME

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 13:28, Allan Day <a...@gnome.org> wrote: > Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert >> subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board >>

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 12:18, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: >> And, yes: diversity is still an issue that we need to tackle [insert >> subtle reminder here about the code of conduct rework that the board >> is still working on and that I hope I'll see in my lifetime]. > > I did read

Re: GitLab update: Moving to the next step

On 7 December 2017 at 11:57, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > Have you considered the backlash to GNOME that it may cause? > https://twitter.com/Amorelandra/status/938444347506180096 > > I just learned about it. You should probably read the whole thread.

Re: Meson support in Continuous

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 at 18:57, Jeremy Bicha <jbi...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 29 November 2017 at 21:12, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The build

Meson support in Continuous

Hi all; I finally had time to work on this, and today I landed Meson support inside Continuous. This means that you won't need a downstream patch, or a build-api wrapper script any more. Additionally, if you have a dual build system Autotools/Meson in your project, the Meson build will be

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On 27 November 2017 at 09:56, Tomas Popela <tpop...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 24 November 2017 at 14:49, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > - Drop the &quo

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On 27 November 2017 at 09:49, Richard Hughes <hughsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 November 2017 at 14:49, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> - Drop the "enable" from --enable-foo boolean options; Meson has >> boolean values, so -Denable-foo=true wou

Re: Meson feedback as a user

Hi Michael; On 4 November 2017 at 01:59, Michael Biebl <mbi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there > > 2017-09-05 19:48 GMT+02:00 Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com>: >> On 5 September 2017 at 18:40, Michael Biebl <mbi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Has th

Re: gjs 1.51.2

On 14 November 2017 at 03:20, wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:41 AM Michael Catanzaro > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Philip Chimento >> wrote: >> > From now on we'll be taking GitLab

Re: User account for migrating Bugzilla issues to GitLab

Thanks, Philip: this is much appreciated. Since Alberto won't likely have time to work on this for a while, and since this code should live in GNOME's own GitLab instance, how about we create a new repository there? Ciao, Emmanuele. On 13 November 2017 at 00:14,

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

On 6 November 2017 at 11:07, Bart Marien wrote: > Guys, if i may just add the following: > > We use gnome extensively in a live e-learning context(+1000 installs). > We've had some minor abuse of the screenshot feature where students would > take screenshots of the teacher

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

On 6 November 2017 at 10:46, Florian Müllner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote: >> I actually had no idea about the shortcuts until recently, specifically for >> screenshoting an area, so I would be slightly against this. If

Re: GitHub mirror creates contribution problems

On 13 October 2017 at 13:54, Bastien Nocera wrote: > I'm now getting comments on commits which are really bug reports, like > this one: > https://github.com/GNOME/gdk-pixbuf/commit/c2a40a92fe3df4111ed9da51fe3368c079b86926#commitcomment-24951987 That's a first. > Do we have

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On 5 September 2017 at 18:40, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2017-07-02 16:21 GMT+02:00 Sam Thursfield : >> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, let's look at other GNOME-related modules that use >>> gtk-doc.

Re: New upstream repo for json-glib

With the migration of the open bugs from Bugzilla, and with the redirects in place, the move is now complete. JSON-GLib is now available at: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/json-glib Start your merge requests! :-D Ciao, Emmanuele. On 10 July 2017 at 16:28, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.

Re: Application name strings consistency

On 4 September 2017 at 13:34, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> I disagree. For some time I've argued that we should drop the "GNOME". >> Reasons for this: >> >> 1. App names should be consistent. >> 2. We generally don't expect users to know what GNOME is. >> 3. There are

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

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 at 20:06, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Hi Matthias! Exciting news indeed! I personally would love to see our > platform on a phone! > > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 8:48 AM Matthias Klumpp > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> 2017-09-03 17:27

Re: Build system change GTK's master branch

On 15 August 2017 at 04:09, Chun-wei Fan (范君維) <fanc...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to Emmanuele for giving me the credit here :) Absolutely well earned. > Emmanuele Bassi 於 2017/8/15 上午 05:46 寫道: >> >> The change means that GTK+ master n

Build system change GTK's master branch

Hi all; executive summary: the master branch of GTK+ now builds with Meson, and the Autotools build system files have been dropped. The documentation has been updated to reflect the new build system — as well as, in some cases, the past 10 years of development. The change means that GTK+ master

Re: GitLab migration status and roadmap

Considering that large repos on gitlab.com — like, say, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/commits/master — are faster than gitlab.gnome.org, I think the issue is on our end, unless GitLab's enterprise edition is more optimised than the community edition. Ciao, Emmanuele. On 14 August 2017

Re: developer.gnome.org and meson

On 9 August 2017 at 20:57, Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 03:20:38PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> After all, Linux >> distributions rebuild the documentation when building the binary >> packages anyway > > I see that in th

Re: developer.gnome.org and meson

In the medium-to-long term, I'd really appreciate if developer.gnome.org stopped trying to extract documentation from random locations inside tarballs, munge the cross-references, and published the HTML on a static website. This would avoid having to generate documentation at all, except when

Re: JHBuild

On 1 August 2017 at 09:16, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote: > is there anything that could be done to make building with JHBuild better? Maintainers taking ownership of the things in the modulesets would help. > jhbuild build > This command I use at least few times in

Re: New upstream repo for json-glib

org> wrote: > Hey all, > > With permission of Emmanuele and following the guidelines we wanted, > json-glib is part of the GNOME group now. So the url is > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/json-glib > > Best, > Carlos Soriano > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Emma

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On 2 July 2017 at 17:02, Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 15:37 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 at 16:29, Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> >> wrote: >> There is a subset of warnin

Re: Meson feedback as a user

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 at 16:29, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 03:21:51PM +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sébastien Wilmet > wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, let's look at other GNOME-related modules that use >

Re: Pilot GitLab program

Please, let's stop this fetish about non-ff merges. If you like non-ff merges and linear history it's entirely up to your taste. Nothing "gets confused" about merge commits, and if your tooling gets confused then I strongly urge you to get better tools — which is the whole point of switching to

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On 16 May 2017 at 16:17, Germán Poo-Caamaño wrote: > Another potential pain point: in Bugzilla, one can move bugs between > products. This happen when the bug has been reported to the wrong > product, or when triaging the bugs the developers know the bug is > somewhere else in

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On 16 May 2017 at 15:38, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Allan Day wrote: >> In recent months we have got together to examine the possibilities for >> GNOME’s development infrastructure. We’ve spent a lot of time on this, >> because

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

Replying to both Michael's and Iain at the same time, to reduce the amount of email. On 27 April 2017 at 15:04, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Iain Lane wrote: >> >> As it happens I interacted with this script (in

Re: For projects switching to Meson *only*

The issue is not writing a simple patch: it takes me about 90 seconds of my life to copy the file, create a commit, format-patch it, and add the patch to gnome-continuous. The whole point would be to avoid adding a patch to Continuous. Additionally, conforming to the build-api is a nice

For projects switching to Meson *only*

Hi everyone; since maintainers have started switching to Meson for the development cycle (awesome!) I'd like to ask for a favour: if you're dropping autotools entirely, could you please add a `configure` wrapper script that conforms to the build-api[1] that GNOME Continuous uses? A simple script

Re: Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

On 3 April 2017 at 19:38, Nicolas Dufresne <nico...@ndufresne.ca> wrote: > Le dimanche 02 avril 2017 à 14:59 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : >> Yes, I know: this would be slightly more easier if Continuous warned >> about build breakages via email (though I'm pretty sure

Re: Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

On 2 April 2017 at 19:20, wrote: > My understanding was the objection was against using Werror as the default > while _not_ paying attention to the CI notifications. Please correct me if > I've misunderstood this. That is correct. If the goal of: - enabling

Re: Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

On 2 April 2017 at 18:16, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 15:59 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> Adding: >> >> disable_Werror = False >> >> to your jhbuildrc should do the trick. > > Ah, but nobody wants to d

Re: Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

On 2 April 2017 at 16:44, Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 03:59:39PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> The point of my email was, though, that people should be keeping an >> eye on their modules on the CD pipeline. > > It's easier

Re: Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

On 2 April 2017 at 15:53, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 14:59 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: >> I know that the effort to use -Werror by default is well-intentioned, >> and ordinarily I'm in favour of maintainers catching errors loca

Do not use -Werror by default in your modules without joining #testable

Hi all; I know that the effort to use -Werror by default is well-intentioned, and ordinarily I'm in favour of maintainers catching errors locally before pushing code to the public repository. In practice, though, this effort has been insufficient, when not misguided. In order to appeal to

Re: Brasero shouldn't look for dvdcss_inerface_2

Thanks Jeremy; I left a comment there. Ciao, Emmanuele. On 26 March 2017 at 14:22, Jeremy Bicha <jbi...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> thanks for the patch. Would it be possible for you to attach it to

Re: Brasero shouldn't look for dvdcss_inerface_2

Hi; thanks for the patch. Would it be possible for you to attach it to a bug on Bugzilla? You can use: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=brasero As far as I can see, the code always looked for the `dvdcss_interface_2` symbol since its inclusion in the repository, but since the

JSON-GLib changed build system in master

Hi all; today I branched off JSON-GLib; the stable branch is json-glib-1-2 and the latest release is 1.2.8. The master branch is 1.3.1, and will become 1.4.0 at some point in the future. Additionally, the maste branch now builds only with Meson and Ninja. I've added a simple `configure` script

Re: irc.gimp.org is now available via Matrix (was: Re: Thoughs about communication)

Thanks ever so much for this work, Matthew. It's really a great addition to the communication channels for GNOME, and hopefully people will start using Matrix much more. :-) Ciao, Emmanuele. On 2 March 2017 at 19:32, Matthew Hodgson wrote: > On 03/02/2017 15:57, Matthew

Re: GNOME goal candidates

On 1 March 2017 at 13:26, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK, then. > > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote: >> I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit >> tests >> and code

Re: GNOME goal candidates

Hi; On 1 March 2017 at 02:44, wrote: > properly. Therefore I'd love to see the installed tests run automatically in > Continuous or something like that, which is more the intended environment > for running them in. They already do: that's what the "integration test"

Re: Documentation for build system setup

On 9 February 2017 at 13:57, Sebastian Geiger (Lanoxx) wrote: > What confuses me is that this paragraph starts with the phrase "it does > not need any modifications made". > >> It does not need any modifications made, unless you need to run >> another tool before configure, or do

Re: Thoughs about communication

Hi; On 13 January 2017 at 12:45, George Barrett wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 08:37:30AM +, Alberto Fanjul Alonso wrote: >> Hi, hackers >> >> Do anybody though about trying new services for communication? >> >> - signal https://whispersystems.org/ >> - telegram

Re: Librsvg 2.41.0 is released

reality that should have long since been accepted, like bundling. Ciao, Emmanuele. On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 21:06, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 18:25 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > > I don't see why not. Cargo is not just a "pa

Re: Librsvg 2.41.0 is released

On 5 January 2017 at 17:37, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 18:48 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: >> Librsvg 2.41.0 is just released! >> >> This is the first version to have Rust code in it. The public API >> remains unchanged. Apologies in advance to

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

Hi; On 12 November 2016 at 17:31, Baptiste Saleil wrote: >> > IMHO, this is one of the most stupid features which is again probably >> > copied from the full-of-stupid-features MacOS. >> >> What exactly do you expect this sort of comment to achieve? > > > Just giving

Re: GNOME 3.21.91

Hi; will do later tonight. Ciao, Emmanuele. On 2 September 2016 at 17:26, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi > > 2016-09-02 1:16 GMT+02:00 Matthias Clasen : >> Hi, >> >> GNOME 3.21.91 is now available. This is our second beta release on the > > I notice

  1   2   3   4   5   >