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 button,
no wallpaper options, my laptop insists on suspending ...
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 01:38:57PM +1100, Michael Gratton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan, 2019 at 5:52 AM, Debarshi Ray
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:03:41PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 14:33 +, Allan Day wrote: > That's not
> >> what's happening here. Until
Hey Emmanuele,
(I am summarizing a few other sub-threads here.)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 06:45:50PM +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 18:36, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > What isn't possible is to mix and match API keys with account types at
> > run-time. That doesn't seem trivial
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:03:18PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It's true that GNOME Documents was conceived as a way to seamlessly
> access all files local and remote. In that sense, the Online Accounts
> integration is crucial for it.
>
> However, it has turned out to be more complicated than
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
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
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:56:49AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> You dropped maintainership of gnome-documents, we're now dropping it
> from core GNOME, and by removing the Documents integration from GOA,
> you're crippling the application, whoever the new maintainer ends up
> being.
No, wrong.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 4:27 AM, Debarshi Ray
wrote:
It so happens that we have half a dozen notifications from Facebook
and Google about our uses of their APIs at varying degrees of
seriousness. They are still on my todo list. Thankfully, Philip
Withnall and Michael Catanzaro are on top of
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 4:13 AM Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list <
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 10:27, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> GNOME has various core applications that depend on the same mechanism. We
> actually made a point of integrating with remote
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 02:48:12PM -0500, Michael Terry wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, at 21:39, Michael Gratton wrote:
> > If GOA Mail is going to be removed from Fedora can there at least be a
> > method to programatically determine what is supported and what isn't,
> > so Geary can avoid
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, at 21:39, Michael Gratton wrote:
> If GOA Mail is going to be removed from Fedora can there at least be a
> method to programatically determine what is supported and what isn't,
> so Geary can avoid launching the control center when people want to add
> an account on
TL;DR:
I don't think Deja Dup has anything to worry about. I was pleasantly
surprised to know that Deja Dup even uses GOA. Having backups
integrated more closely in the OS seems like a good thing to me. I'd
encourage you to bring up the story of backups with the GNOME Design
Team.
On Sun, Jan
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019, at 11:14, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> Err... well this seems like as good a time as any to mention it: Philip
> and I both noticed emails from Google warning that they'll shut us down
> unless we do a huge amount of work in a very short amount of time.
> Neither of us
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:24:00AM -0800, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> 2. It's not possible to discontinue support for services X, Y, and Z from
> GOA, and yank the rug out from under apps that expected (even if that
> expectation was wrong) it to be part of a stable platform.
You mean like
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:37:31AM +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> 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,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 2:24 PM Philip Chimento via desktop-devel-list
wrote:
> PS. Yes, count me among the completely surprised that GOA is not an API that
> apps should use. It was not communicated anywhere close to the level it
> needed to be. That's on GNOME, not on those app developers.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:04 PM Debarshi Ray wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:24:00AM -0800, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 2. It's not possible to discontinue support for services X, Y, and Z from
> > GOA, and yank the rug out from under apps that expected (even if that
> > expectation
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019, at 16:16, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> "maintain GNOME's Google support" is bit misleading here. I'll try to
> explain.
>
> "GNOME's Google support" is libgdata and the GNOME API key. Using
> libgdata is independent of using GOA, and that's where the
> overwhelming bulk of effort
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:29 PM Michael Terry wrote:
> (I assume you meant that deja-dup doesn't have much to worry about in the
> main context of this thread about Documents support etc being dropped from
> GNOME. And you're correct there. But Michael's comment about GNOME losing
> it's
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:32 PM, Nathan Graule via desktop-devel-list
wrote:
Given what I've read about the Google policy (and I don't know how
much of that was added with the Jan. 15 revision), but it seems like
the very concept of GOA as a centralized account repository goes
against Google
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:29 PM, Michael Terry wrote:
You say deja-dup has nothing to worry about. But I very much have to
solve the problem of many of my users losing access to their backups
(through my app at least) in three weeks. Will not inspire
confidence. Again, my fault I guess for
Given what I've read about the Google policy (and I don't know how much
of that was added with the Jan. 15 revision), but it seems like the
very concept of GOA as a centralized account repository goes against
Google rules. Google wants to know by whom the OAuth key will be used,
and how. Under
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 01:29:54PM +, Matthew Paul Thomas via
desktop-devel-list wrote:
> * For some reason that isn???t clear to me, GOA cares what you use each
> account for, rather than merely recording which apps the user has
> granted access to each account.
Because that's how
Folks,
I don't have anything technical to add to this discussion, so as someone
just following along with the thread I think we should take our emotions
down a couple notches. Calling each other out, playing the blame game, and
dredging up stuff from the past is not going to help us come up with
Jeremy,
You already attempted to slander me once before in this thread:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-January/msg00027.html
It's been one week since I produced evidence against that:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-January/msg00035.html
You had
Hey Michael,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 08:29:32PM -0500, Michael Terry wrote:
> I meant (1) keeping GNOME's API key valid, (2) maintaining
> libgdata, (3) maintaining the GVFS google backend (which only
> supports using GOA keys -- an app can't give it its own keys),
> and (4) maintaining the GOA
26 matches
Mail list logo
