Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 10:53 -0800, Bob Kashani a écrit :
> Hi, Vincent.
>
> My thoughts on the the new logout/shutdown:
>
> 1.) I prefer that logout be at the very bottom (as Luca suggested)...but
> I also agree with Luca, that it's probably just my preference. :)
> 2.) I don't like the t
Le vendredi 10 février 2006 à 08:40 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> Another idea to reduce the "anciety" issue would be to start counting in
> larger
> increments, say 10 seconds, and only switch to per-second updates for
> the last 20 seconds or so.
Done in HEAD (except it does the per-second
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 02:54 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > What a big jerkbird! So lazy! So community-tearing! Definitely the work of
> > an evil, evil noncontributor.
>
> Anna, as I mentioned in another email, this frustration is about a broader
> problem we have in our community than the par
> > (A similar set of issues were expressed more eloquently in my GUADEC talk,
> > if you want to watch that video.)
>
> do you have a link?
http://stream.fluendo.com/archive/6uadec/Jeff_Waugh_-_Project_Topaz.ogg
- Jeff
--
FOSDEM 2006: Brussels, Belgiumhttp://www.fosdem.or
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 14:29 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>
> >It is possible to run for instance 'gst-inspect-0.10' in the postinst
> >script to force the registry rebuild.
> >
> >
> Will that remove the overhead for all users, or just the user
Hi all,
My god, I am a little surprised at the discussion that has resulted
from a small comparison I made on my blog. :P I want to be entirely
clear in my opinion here - I was not criticising Novell for these
changes, just making the comparison.
In terms of the 'design behind closed doors', I th
This is to confirm that the gtk-engines team have decided that, in light
of the recent issues raised on various mailing lists, and our own
assessment of the progress we have made towards the goals for
gtk-engines 2.8, we would like to suggest that GNOME 2.14 uses the 2.6.x
series of gtk-engines
Hi all,
The release team met yesterday to talk about all the current issues.
Here are our conclusions.
New modules:
+ gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
and more integration should be done. It won't go in for 2.14, but
we'd like to see a good integration
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 18:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> + gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
> and more integration should be done. It won't go in for 2.14, but
> we'd like to see a good integration work starting soon for 2.16.
No worries. Does this mean I
On 2/11/06, Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 18:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > + gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
> > and more integration should be done. It won't go in for 2.14, but
> > we'd like to see a good integrat
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 10:53 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 18:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > + gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
> > > and more integration should be done. It wo
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 18:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> + gnome-icon-theme: we fully support the adoption of the new icon
> naming spec. However the change happened too late for this cycle. We
> will ship with the 2.12 versions of gnome-icon-theme for GNOME 2.14
> and encourage peopl
Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 17:09 +, Thomas Wood escreveu:
> This is to confirm that the gtk-engines team have decided that, in light
> of the recent issues raised on various mailing lists, and our own
> assessment of the progress we have made towards the goals for
> gtk-engines 2.8, we would like
Hi Vincent,
I've been informed [1] (in a bugzilla comment, of all places) that
Gnome 2.14 is going to use the 2.12 branch of librsvg in the upcoming
release. I'd like confirmation on that, as my reference is only to a
jhbuild module set, and I don't know how authoritative that is.
Caleb Moore, Ca
Evandro Fernandes Giovanini wrote:
Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 17:09 +, Thomas Wood escreveu:
This is to confirm that the gtk-engines team have decided that, in light
of the recent issues raised on various mailing lists, and our own
assessment of the progress we have made towards the goals for
g
On 2/11/06, Dominic Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I've been informed [1] (in a bugzilla comment, of all places) that
> Gnome 2.14 is going to use the 2.12 branch of librsvg in the upcoming
> release. I'd like confirmation on that, as my reference is only to a
> jhbuild modu
Hi Elijah,
> Crap. It sucks that this wasn't noticed so that those testing cvs
> could be testing the right thing. It looks like this was because you
> guys branched early last release, the 2.12 moduleset got copied for
> 2.14, and then no one caught this and updated it. Anyway, can you
> updat
On 2/11/06, Dominic Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2.13 has gotten a lot of testing, and has come out a lot better than
> any previously released version. It has had a good number of bugs
> filed against it (and fixed), so it's gotten some testing by people
> other than Caleb and myself. I
On 2/11/06, Dominic Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, we branched early so that we could focus on getting Cairo
> integration hammered out.
>
> I don't use jhbuild, so I would be more comfortable if someone who
> does use it made this change. I'd rather not make the change without
> bein
Hi,
I have just branched gnome-icon-theme for gnome-2-14, from an earlier
date in the 2.13 cycle, where the changes to follow the naming spec have
not yet been implemented. A couple of fixes and a new icon used by the
search functionality added to Nautilus in 2.14, are still in however.
I have al
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 10:53 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 18:23 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > + gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is
> needed,
> > > and more integration should be done. It
Rodney Dawes wrote:
> PS: I would also like to think the people who actually took the time to
> give /useful/ feedback on the gnome-icon-theme changes.
Sorry if I'm in the category of those who did not give useful feedback
on that specific point.
There was some discussion about a week back on #gn
Andy Wingo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 14:29 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
>
>
>>Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is possible to run for instance 'gst-inspect-0.10' in the postinst
>>>script to force the registry rebuild.
>>>
>>>
>>Will that remove the ov
23 matches
Mail list logo
