On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:50 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
I think you and Havoc agree on everything, *except* for what stuff can
GTK+ depend on?.
To me, this question gets down to 'what is GTK+ being designed for?'
Right now, there are three major uses for GTK+:
* the GNOME Desktop
On Qua, 2006-09-06 at 15:26 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
Hi Havoc,
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 21:16 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
To be slightly more constructive, I was thinking on the drive home, why
wouldn't there be something like:
interface GdkSession {
signal
--- Jonathan Blandford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:50 -0500, Federico Mena
Quintero wrote:
I think you and Havoc agree on everything,
*except* for what stuff can
GTK+ depend on?.
To me, this question gets down to 'what is GTK+
being designed for?'
Right now,
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Bryan Clark wrote:
The first, obvious transition is to a save dialog window with the same
behaviour of the GtkFileChooserDialog, to use the tab completion + full
path editing of the destination file; the currently used layout (preview
+ save stuff + (save, cancel,
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 15:26 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
Hi Havoc,
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 21:16 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
To be slightly more constructive, I was thinking on the drive home, why
wouldn't there be something like:
interface GdkSession {
signal
Jonathan Blandford wrote:
Right now, there are three major uses for GTK+:
* the GNOME Desktop toolkit (rich desktop experience)
* a cross-platform toolkit (LCD approach)
* an embedded platform (pick-and-choose)
It's a bit of a false choice; I don't think the LCD approach is required
in a
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Well, I'd love to not to see this reimplemented in every application
that tries to simply inhibit the screensaver. See:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305688
Why would I need to reimplement this on X/GNOME, MacOS X, and Windows
myself, when other
Hi,
I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release
schedule of Gnome to do a major release with a certain number of feature
that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform.
There have been a large pimping of project Topaz, and I strongly
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 21:51 -0600, Brent Smith wrote:
In the future, we should set a specific timeline for the release notes
and a deadline for comments on a final draft, and a freeze for
translation right before the release.
I second the request for a specific timeline in the future. I'd also
What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
-David
On 9/7/06, Pat Suwalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month
release
schedule of Gnome to do a major release with a certain number of feature
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 12:59 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
There have been a large pimping of project Topaz, and I strongly believe that
this is the kind of goal that would need a longer development cycle for a big
leap forward towards world domination.
The counterargument here is always
On 9/7/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The don't have time argument leads to a libno-time-to-port-to-windows
which kind of sucks as a way to organize the platform. Didn't GTK used
to have a policy that stuff went in for X and the Windows team had to
keep up? It was a little
David Trowbridge wrote:
What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
Nothing's impossible, but a longer cycle every so often would encourage
larger and better thought-out changes. I always get the feeling that
GNOME contributors hold back on a lot of excellent ideas because they
On 9/6/06, JP Rosevear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is, I've seen no unequivocal declaration about gtk+ and glib
accepting these higher level abstractions, so perhaps matthias can
comment, because historically this has not been the case and is a
primary concern for me at least.
I
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release
schedule of Gnome to do a major release with a certain number of feature
that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform.
I have been thinking about this as well, just
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
Hi,
I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release
schedule of Gnome to do a major release with a certain number of feature
that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform.
There have been a large pimping of
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:24 -0700, David Trowbridge wrote:
What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
For one thing: the documentation gets squeezed. We (the doc team) have,
basically, 3 month to document all the changes, update all the docs and
add any new documentation
tor, 07 09 2006 kl. 11:24 -0700, skrev David Trowbridge:
What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
I honestly don't think it's about the cycle length as much as the slight
fear we seem to have of setting major goals for the project.
I doubt we can do Topaz within the comfort of
On 9/7/06, Pat Suwalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Trowbridge wrote:
What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
Nothing's impossible, but a longer cycle every so often would encourage
larger and better thought-out changes. I always get the feeling that
GNOME contributors
Elijah Newren wrote:
[1] I've often worked on big changes that couldn't possibly make it in
by the next release, including during code freezes. Sure, I can't
commit it to HEAD when I'm doing so, but I can keep working on it even
during hard code freeze (in branches, of course), planning it
Before you change something, you need to have a reason to; this is more so
if you want to change something that is working out pretty well, such as
GNOME's release cycle. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a universally
accepted reason to change GNOME's release cycle.
This leaves the GNOME 2
On 9/7/06, Havoc Pennington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, there's a reality that HEAD has to always be roughly working since
lots of people are trying to work with it.
Given that reality, a longer cycle essentially does nothing to make it
easier to make large changes, because a branch is
Hi,
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release
schedule of Gnome to do a major release with a certain number of feature
that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform.
More important than moving away from the
An innocent bystander who I'm going to flame now wrote:
I doubt we can do Topaz within the comfort of our tried and true 6 month
cycle and we do need to decide what Topaz is going to be at some point.
But how can you say that we can't do Topaz in the 6 month cycle when you
admit that WE DON'T
On 9/7/06, Pat Suwalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing's impossible, but a longer cycle every so often would encourage
larger and better thought-out changes.
Or lots more not-so-well-thought-out changes...
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
Hi all,
I think the focus in this thread is a little imbalanced. I think we
really, really need to focus on actually decided on what Topaz is
going to be. I feel that the lack of direction in the project to say
this is what will be in Topaz is actually starting to harm us - it
is making us look
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 22:56 +0200, Chipzz wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Why can't gtk depend on dbus? How do those reasons not apply to libgnome?
I don't know, I'm asking. But there's no reason to just make an
assumption up front that gtk can't depend on dbus, or
On Thursday 07 September 2006 14:51, Jamie McCracken wrote:
I dont know how topaz will transpire but I feel it should be written in
a native high level language like D or Vala as its likely to be a
rewrite of much of the existing code and could be doable in 9 months
with a more productive
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 15:42 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
snip
If you look at for example the GdkSession sketch I posted though, people
seem to feel that is GNOME specific for some reasons I don't understand
at all; the functionality is completely implementable on Windows and KDE
I know,
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 13:23 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
Not sure if I'll paraphrase him correctly,
You came close enough that I shan't quibble :)
++
This is what I've experienced in language binding land (and probably the
story I told Elijah that he's paraphrasing):
The people I work with on
30 matches
Mail list logo
