Re: Looking for unit tests written for GNOME 2 back in 2004

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:12 AM Owen Taylor wrote: > > Perhaps: > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/gtkvts > > These were contributed by Sun when they got involved with GNOME, and > were later used in the LSB test framework. > > I have to say that these tests,

Re: Looking for unit tests written for GNOME 2 back in 2004

Perhaps: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Archive/gtkvts These were contributed by Sun when they got involved with GNOME, and were later used in the LSB test framework. I have to say that these tests, while very extensive, were not developed together with the GTK+ code base, so they tended to test the

Re: g_object_ref() now propagates types

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Philip Withnall wrote: > > child_type = CHILD_TYPE (g_object_ref (parent_type)); > > That will add a compile-time explicit cast, and a runtime type check. > (As always, the runtime type check is disabled if GLib is built without > debugging

Re: GSoC student introduction

Hi Armin - Thanks for being interested in Mutter and putting forward this proposal! One thing you need to realize is that this is a really hard development task. Without really working through the details, my guess is that getting GNOME to the point where it can start without an Xwayland

Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:37 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:51 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > To get them building again from HEAD again, what you can do is add > > a > > compatibility configure script as described in: > > I don't want to

Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 18:33 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:51 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > Javier has tagged evolution and evolution-data-server to pre-cmake > > versions in gnome-continuous. > > Hi, > I know, I coordinate the change with Javier

Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 17:06 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 09:33 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > > I plan to merge the changes the next Monday, October 10th, some > > time > > after the 3.22.1 release. This way there will be enough time to > > catch > > any issues before the 3.23.1

Re: builddir != srcdir in jhbuild breaks my workflow

On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 19:23 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: >  > 1) Once a project is fully built, to re-build something I always do > something along those lines: > > To compile only what I need: > > $ jhbuild shell > [jhbuild] $ cd src/ > [jhbuild] $ make > > To re-build only a certain *.c

Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 08:38 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 10:40 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: And some of the things that were done to make gnome -continuous robust - like assembling a build root from scratch for each build and building each module from scratch - make

Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 12:22 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: On 21/07/15 00:11, Owen Taylor wrote: We could theoretically address 2 by having our standard test setup to run in a VM, but a lot of aspects of the system don't test well in a VM - touchscreen input, multimonitor, networking UI

Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 03:00 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Are there specific reasons why KVM doesn't cut it for shell developers? GPU access? As mentioned in the original mail, there are two main issues: A) Indirection from the hardware: network, sound, monitors, webcams, bluetooth,

How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

As we move to Wayland, some of the ways we used to work on the core parts of GNOME (like gnome-shell --replace) no longer work. I think this is a good time to look at how we hack on GNOME, how we can make it more standard and obvious for newcomers, and how we can make it easier. We can

Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 16:35 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: I've hacked on things all the from 1-5. Everything has a different development process, as usual, and I don't think there's any sense in trying to unify them. Writing documentation and getting people started quicker is always great,

Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?

On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 02:04 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: It'd be really nice if we could team up with the people working on container technology so that we were able to run a full GNOME session within a container. Even if it was privilleged. I'm intimidated by the amount of work there. For

Re: End Session Dialog

On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 20:26 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote: question to gnome-session and gnome-shell developers about End Session dialog. Currently gnome-session expect that End Session Dialog is available on org.gnome.Shell. Can we change it so it does not require org.gnome.Shell for

Re: End Session Dialog

On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 22:49 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 20:26 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote: question to gnome-session and gnome-shell developers about End

Some points about IM integration

In general, choice of input method framework is not a goal in itself. If we choose a single input method framework to integrate with GNOME - that doesn't make GNOME like proprietary software from Apple and Microsoft, because GNOME will still be 100% Free Software, and will still be developed in

Re: Some points about IM integration

On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:12 +0800, Weng Xuetian wrote: All of the above is an argument only for picking a single input method framework. It doesn't say anything about what input method framework we should pick. The fact that the IBus developers have been engaged with GNOME for quite some

Re: Some points about IM integration

On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 23:39 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: I don't want people to draw the conclusion that because I'm saying that input methods should have simple configuration without a lot of options, I think that they aren't important. I'm very aware that every single user that comes to GNOME

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 08:43 +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote: Rather a long discussion over IBus, but it seems to more or less boil down to two voices and this: Gnome developers: we want tighter IM integration and simpler UI in the name of better UX, and are looking at IBus as the underlying

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

Hi Maguerite, Thanks for the detailed response! It's hard for me to talk about the pros and cons of fcitx and IBus - sadly I don't speak or write Chinese, and I haven't investigated the technical operations of these systems either. But what I do want to talk about is the user experience we try

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 21:00 +0200, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: Then, all these projects try to do things in a cross-desktop way. This isn't bad per se, but it creates several practical problems for an integrated and cohesive environment like GNOME: - UIs which look alien; - conflicts with

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 11:10 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 09:34 +0200, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: On 24/04/2012, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: snip So, I don't think it really works to just ignore the group mechanism of XKB and always load a one-group

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 14:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 09:37 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 11:10 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 09:34 +0200, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: On 24/04/2012, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 16:00 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: Isn't that a whole lot more confusing? Plus, do we have time in the 3.6 cycle to do a good job at inventing a replacement for non-legacy apps? Is that the best use of our resources? That's an example. And from what I understood,

Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:56 +0200, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: And, of course, there is a question of performance - invoking setxkbmap (even calling corresponding XKB APIs) is so much more expensive than changing current group in X server... Well, if you're running GNOME 3 I'd say

Re: Notes on extensions.gnome.org security

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 17:16 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: [...] On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: The idea of a GNOME Shell extension is to let the GNOME community build on top of the GNOME Shell code base, to tweak, to customize, and to prototype new

Re: Notes on extensions.gnome.org security

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 22:35 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: Of course, Linux users run unsandboxed code with arbitary capabilities every day - applications, for example. So the security question with GNOME Shell extensions is not how we can do the almost impossible job of sandboxing them, but how

Notes on extensions.gnome.org security

The idea of a GNOME Shell extension is to let the GNOME community build on top of the GNOME Shell code base, to tweak, to customize, and to prototype new GNOME features and behaviors. GNOME Shell extensions aren't sandboxed, and sandboxing them is fundamentally hard because shell extensions are

Testing out jhbuild

To me, the criterion for success is that someone can start from scratch, without knowing much about Linux development and have a working build within an hour or so, without having to babysit it. Any sort of babysitting makes things much longer for everybody, and basically impossible for the

Re: Testing out jhbuild

Here are notes from trying a pretty much from-scratch build of meta-gnome-core-shell. (I made an effort to remove as many development packages as possible from my system before doing this.) Apparently I accidentally hit send in evolution. So, in particular ignore the part at the end where it

Those darn gdk-pixbuf .po file conflicts

Anybody jhbuilding GNOME will have run into problems with .po file conflicts in gdk-pixbuf, where building it causes local changes that conflict with updates from translators. Finally got annoyed enough to track down the problem. The unique characteristics that gdk-pixbuf has that causes these

Re: Interested in GNOME on touchscreens?

On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 22:05 +0100, Florian Müllner wrote: On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 14:51 -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: An on-screen keyboard GUI probably would not need to be coded in Clutter to look well integrated with GNOME Shell, unless there is some advantage to coding the GUI in

Re: IRC channels in gnome development

Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote: On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 14:27 +, Allan Day wrote: It simply isn't true to say that we haven't made an effort to explain what we're doing. I explained many of the design considerations in my blog post [1] on this subject, and I did that

Planned GNOME Shell UI changes (was Re: String and UI Change Announcement)

On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 23:31 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: It probably makes sense at least for the shell team and for the people working on the default theme to tell gnome-doc-list how much of the UI can be expected to still change during that period. It'd be a shame to have people starting to

Re: Planned GNOME Shell UI changes (was Re: String and UI Change Announcement)

On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 18:52 +0100, Giovanni Campagna wrote: * A native network indicator applet will be added that works with NetworkManager 0.9 will be landing. (So don't screenshot the current nm-applet which doesn't even have symbolic icons for the panel) I'm not sure it

Re: Planned GNOME Shell UI changes (was Re: String and UI Change Announcement)

On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:03 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 12:33 -0500, Owen Taylor a écrit : * UI will be added for displaying information about fallback mode and forcing fallback mode when the system seems capable of doing a full composited desktop

Re: Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 11:16 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, GNOME maintainers developers need a place to co-ordinate efforts running up to GNOME 3.0, co-ordinate which bugs are blockers, which features modules need work and who's working on them, etc. This (the desktop *devel* list) is the

Re: Minimum system requirements for GNOME Shell

On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 10:47 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 25 décembre 2010 à 00:09 +0100, Johannes Schmid a écrit : I doubt we can make definite statement here as it involves quite a lot of other system components. Netbook with Intel Atom and the on-board graphics works ok and

My thoughts on fallback mode

Pretty hard to jump in on the mega-thread at this point. But wanted to provide a few notes from my perspective: * I like the term fallback mode better than classic GNOME or GNOME 2 because it doesn't set up the expectation that everything is identical. And there are significant changes -

Re: gnome-spidermonkey?

On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 11:23 +, Maciej Piechotka wrote: On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 08:33 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: 2010/12/11 Maciej Piechotka uzytkown...@gmail.com: On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 13:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: Basically, I want us to be decoupled from this; there are

Re: gnome-spidermonkey?

On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 16:20 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: We need a smallish amount of code. The complete Firefox build in the jhbuild takes a long time. Don't build FF in jhbuild, use the one provided by your distribution. A) FF in your distribution might provide one of two very

Re: Volunteer needed: Snapshot live image project

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:20 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote: * As automated as possible but no more so. We probably at least need some sort of manual QA to make sure that the top download link is for a snapshot that isn't entirely broken. Anybody interested in taking on this project?

Volunteer needed: Snapshot live image project

So currently trying out GNOME 3 requires one of two things: either installing some operating system under heavy development, or doing a day-long jhbuild from source. At the meeting today we were discussing that we'd like to have another option - that if we want to do QA or user testing on the

Re: Metacity towards GNOME 3.0

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:23 +0800, Sam Spilsbury wrote: - We could just make it require GTK+ 3.0. This is my suggestion - GNOME 3 is a GTK+ 3.0-based desktop. Metacity is the GNOME (fallback) window manager. GTK+ 3.0 will be released as a stable toolkit before Metacity 3.0 is

Re: Metacity towards GNOME 3.0

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 19:04 +, Rob Bradford wrote: On 1 December 2010 21:29, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: Metacity is an important component of GNOME 3 as the window manager in fallback mode. There's a couple of major things that need doing to make it work in the GNOME 3 stack

Re: Holes in GNOME 3 process

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:12 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 16:26 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote: Plans for testing GNOME 3 = Everybody knows what needs work in their own modules, but there are lot of gaps in between modules. How are we going to catch

Metacity towards GNOME 3.0

Metacity is an important component of GNOME 3 as the window manager in fallback mode. There's a couple of major things that need doing to make it work in the GNOME 3 stack that I wanted to bring up here. Both of them already have patches but we need to figure out exactly we want to do. Port to

Holes in GNOME 3 process

So, we have a nice schedule for GNOME 3 at: http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone/ That's not in itself going to get us to a good solid GNOME 3. There seems to a lot more stuff that needs doing on the coordination side, and if it's happening, it's not being very well advertised, because I

Re: Applets and GNOME 3

On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 12:32 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Okay, we all know applets are a naughty word with GNOME 3. What do we do with them - delete them from git master? Would this be a precondition on an project getting the badge of GNOME 3 ? Generally, it's a good thing if GNOME 3 modules

libpeas, multiple languages, toggle references

Was talking about this with Matthias on IRC, and he suggested that it would be good to make the point to a larger audience. * libpeas seems to have support for loading plugins written in both Python and Javascript in the same process. * Both seed and pygobject use GObject toggle references.

Re: Module Proposal: Zeitgeist

On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:52 -0400, Curtis Hovey wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 19:01 +0200, Seif Lotfy wrote: Our current development is heavily based on launchpad. We are discussing the issue and we don't see a problem to have our trunk from launchpad ported to git with every release.

Re: Some invalid DOAP files

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 10:31 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: A few modules have DOAP files that aren't valid RDF. This is what they have: maintainer foaf:Person.../foaf:Person foaf:Person.../foaf:Person /maintainer This doesn't work in RDF. Properties like maintainer take a single

Re: Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 15:05 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: snip I couldn't this time last year either (and that's not a benchmark for how long it takes to learn either). I don't think your case is a good one, given that you worked on Tracker almost exclusively during that time. Well, to

Re: Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

(Replying selectively - lots of stuff snipped that I agree with) On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:18 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 18:09 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: I've attempted below to extract out some of the technical bits from http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design

Re: Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 09:10 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! There are two basic approaches here - one is to avoid storing things on the Desktop. Instead of seeing the Desktop as a separate location in the file selector, you'd have a checkbox: [ ] Pin to Desktop

Re: Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 11:43 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote: On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 18:09 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Tracker === In some testing, Tracker 0.8 seems enormously better behaved than Tracker 0.6. It has very significant optimizations in how it stores the tracker database

Re: Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 00:25 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: The other approach is when expiring or archiving to move files from ~/Desktop to an archival location like ~/Documents. How does moving it work with non aware applications or a shared file space ? You risk opening a file having it

Finding and Reminding, tech issues, 3.0 and beyond

I've attempted below to extract out some of the technical bits from http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/FindingAndReminding and see how they line up with our current technology. This is just notes, not yet a concrete plan. - Owen File management ideas and technology

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:40 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 09:24 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Let me phrase it a little differently then - it's not a problem that GNOME is able to fix. If there is demand, I assume NVIDIA will work on xrandr support. Yeah, but given how

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 08:44 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Paul Cutler pcut...@gnome.org wrote: I think Alberto's idea of reaching out to nVidia is a great idea - if we can clearly communicate our needs to them it can't hurt to ask.

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 13:33 +, Sam Spilsbury wrote: The other problem with GNOME-Shell is that the vast majority of it runs under a dynarec with javascript, which, although fast, can never be faster than optimized C/C++ code. The large majority of code that runs *for each frame* is

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 18:26 +0100, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: tarballs:http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-shell/ I notice you guys did only two tarball releases last cycle (and no 2.30 release), though

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 11:57 +0800, Sam Spilsbury wrote: On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 18:41 +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: 2010/4/2 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com: * Virtually all machines produced currently, or in the last

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 08:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 03 avril 2010 à 23:41 -0400, Owen Taylor a écrit : * Radeon KMS drivers are very slow (too slow to run gnome-shell, at least) and still stabilizing. Almost since the beginning 18 months ago, my

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 14:52 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le vendredi 02 avril 2010 à 08:34 -0400, Owen Taylor a écrit : We've always planned to require graphics acceleration. To review: * We can't take advantage of the capabilities of graphics acceleration in the user interface

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

Alan Cox wrote: I don't believe that is correct for any of the listed vendors even on Linux. On BSD the situation is even more patchy. Is Gnome dropping support for these operating systems ? The vast majority of GNOME desktop users are on Linux. The vast majority of our developers are on

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 09:56 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote: This leads to some important questions: 1) Will Gnome have the ability, by default, to auto-detect which panel/shell to use based on the available hardware? This is a little hard to do at the GNOME level, because it depends on what

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 18:41 +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: 2010/4/2 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com: * Virtually all machines produced currently, or in the last 5 years have sufficiently powerful graphics to meet our needs. In some cases, free software drivers that can access

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 17:05 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: Hi William! I think it is better to say: GNOME 2 will still be available after GNOME 3 is released. Perhaps in long term stable maintenance mode.

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 11:19 +0300, Naba Kumar wrote: Hi Owen, On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: Purpose: GNOME Shell takes advantage of the capabilities of modern graphics hardware ... Does gnome-shell work without graphics capabilities? A few

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:48 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:28 -0400, Willie Walker wrote: 2) In the Appearance section on the WIKI, there is mention of theming. Will this hook into the desktop appearance settings we have available in GNOME today? Remember that

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:28 -0400, Willie Walker wrote: Hi Owen: Many thanks to the GNOME Shell team for writing this and the WIKI page. It is very promising to see accessibility included in the roadmap. I have a few questions: 1) I believe accessibility should be a requirement for

Re: Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 10:38 +0200, Guillaume Desmottes wrote: Hi Owen, Le mardi 30 mars 2010 à 19:16 -0400, Owen Taylor a écrit : tarballs:http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-shell/ During the usability hackfest some people complained that the lack of development

Module Proposal: GNOME Shell

[ I've intentionally kept this proposal short rather than trying to answer every possible concern; if you have questions, feel free to ask them now or during the module discussion period in May. I'll be largely away from my mail for the next few days, so I'll probably respond to

Module proposal: Mutter

Purpose: Mutter is a window and compositing manager that displays and manages your desktop via OpenGL. Mutter combines a sophisticated display engine using the Clutter toolkit with solid window-management logic inherited from the Metacity window manager. While Mutter can be used

Re: How do I request a patch review?

On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 18:31 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 09:44 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: Am Sonntag, den 07.03.2010, 19:56 -0800 schrieb MPR: My assumption is that there must be some patch review process that was not followed. No, there's not. And this

Re: gnome.org outage: Dec 12, 13

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 11:35 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote: Red Hat is currently in the process of consolidating all its community hosted servers to a single hosting facility. As part of that, the gnome.org servers are being moved *this weekend*. You plan on doing something other than working

gnome.org outage: Dec 12, 13

Red Hat is currently in the process of consolidating all its community hosted servers to a single hosting facility. As part of that, the gnome.org servers are being moved *this weekend*. You plan on doing something other than working on GNOME this weekend, or find a programming task that doesn't

Re: On Ctrl+tab

On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 20:15 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 01:51 +, Iain Nicol wrote: Joanmarie Diggs wrote: On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 18:57 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: As a user, I tend to agree with that sentiment. While I understand the usefulness of

Re: Module semi-proposal: gnome-shell

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 02:23 +0100, Christian Neumair wrote: 2009/11/2 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com: GJS and SpiderMonkey: Currently gnome-shell is build using the GJS bindings to Javascript which work with the Mozilla SpiderMonkey Javascript engine. The comparison to seed

Re: Module semi-proposal: gnome-shell

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 02:24 +0100, Christian Neumair wrote: 2009/11/2 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com: This should be read as a semi-proposal: at this point I don't think gnome-shell is going to be ready to be shipped as a final component on the 2.30 schedule. But getting it into people's

Module semi-proposal: gnome-shell

Oh, the deadline was *last* Monday? Actually, I knew that, but it snuck up on me, then it took me a few days to figure out what I wanted to say here... This should be read as a semi-proposal: at this point I don't think gnome-shell is going to be ready to be shipped as a final component on the

Re: Module semi-proposal: gnome-shell

On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 16:28 -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: Owen: It sounds like GNOME Shell will likely not integrate with GNOME 2.30. How are users expected to turn on/enable GNOME Shell? At the Boston Summit, I remember people suggesting that there should be a checkbox in the

Re: What does gnome-shell give us?

On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:46 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 18:37 +, Colin Walters wrote: * Actual design for how workspaces behave (We didn't really have this in any consistent way, but now is an opportunity to fix it right, e.g. make moving an application to a

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 10:42 +1000, Danielle Madeley wrote: On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: I think for most modules, confirming bugs has usually seemed like a waste of of the maintainer's time. Confirming bugs assumes that the maintainer isn't looking at bugs until

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:32 -0500, C de-Avillez wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:24:23 -0400 Tristan Van Berkom tristan.van.ber...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the buglist

Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 12:27 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: Guys, Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the buglist and throwing them into a NEEDINFO state. Javier pointed me to a blog post[0] which

Searching for patches in bugzilla

Finding patches in your component that haven't been reviewed is a pretty common operation. Our previous ways of doing it (emblems, links from browse.cgi) aren't working at the moment, so I thought I'd mention here how to do it with the boolean charts feature, since I had trouble figuring it out.

Re: New Module Proposal. libseed

I wanted to provide some gnome-shell perspective here. In quick summary, we'd see including libseed in the GNOME-2.28 desktop set as a positive step toward heavier use of Javascript in GNOME in the future. Porting gnome-shell to Seed would certainly not be a big deal; I would sigh in regret over

Re: mailto: now all of a sudden necessary in DOAP file

On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 10:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 00:58, Philip Withnall phi...@tecnocode.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 17:08 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 23:58 +0200, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 15:46 -0500, Shaun

Re: mailto: now all of a sudden necessary in DOAP file

On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 09:45 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Appended is a list of all modules with doap files failing validation as of this morning. [...] Invalid foaf:mbox property should be a mailto: URL == Messed up this list and included a some

Re: git migration - svn:externals

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 08:06 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote: Hi! svn:externals are not migrated at all. That breaks anjuta-extras module (b.g.o #579867) and gtkmm (fixed by duplicating files now). Is there anything we can do to fix it? Duplicating files is a quite weak and ugly solution.

Re: http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/pulse/web/

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 13:12 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 19:05 +0200, Ruben Vermeersch wrote: On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 11:22 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: Later: Write notes, edit overview pages for things you maintain, tell Pulse where you are so we can map our

Re: git commit messages

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 21:59 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Le jeudi 23 avril 2009, à 15:42 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : On 04/23/2009 08:47 AM, Loïc Minier wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009, Vincent Untz wrote: Frédéric (fredp) is suggesting to also propose a standard scheme to reference bugs

Re: gnomeweb-wml pushes not causing website updates. missing a hook?

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:58 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 13:19 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:44 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: Hi, Not really sure where to direct

Re: Applets? [was Re: Planning for GNOME 3.0]

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:23 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:54:43PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Crack === Brightness applet Inhibit Applet There will be often differences in opionions. I, for one, use above two applets very often. First, because changing

Re: How to remove remote branch with git?

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:24 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: I just did my first commit with git (Yay!!). However I first made a mistake and made a new remote branch called jaap in the cheese project. I now want to remove that branch because it was a mistake. How do I do this? What I read from

Re: gnomeweb-wml pushes not causing website updates. missing a hook?

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 22:44 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: Hi, Not really sure where to direct this, but I made an update to the Tomboy website 3 hours ago: http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gnomeweb-wml/commit/?id=3d1e649acdc765290de0f4a5abbec5ba0064d25f I would expect the live site to have

Applets? [was Re: Planning for GNOME 3.0]

[ Resend from a typo in the To: ] On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 23:26 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: 2009/4/19 Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com: On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Sebastian Pölsterl wrote: I think it would be a big mistake to omit applets in the new gnome desktop evolution.

  1   2   >