On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 14:08 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> I asked for a string freeze break on gnome-3-4 branch in Evolution [1].
> I'll revert the removal, when/if they'll approve.
I meant it when I said I would consider that a regression.
___
evolution-h
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 07:34 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:04 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:19 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:47 +0200, Milan Crha wrot
> > > Consistency with other GTK+ applications is more impo
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 19:22 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote:
> That effort would better be put into improving GTK+ itself for
> everyone, rather than just fixing up Evolution.
In the general case of course that's true, but where GTK+ is hell-bent
on making its widgets harder to use and actively *res
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:04 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:19 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:47 +0200, Milan Crha wrot
> > Consistency with other GTK+ applications is more important.
> > If GtkFileChooser has chosen a bad policy, try and open a d
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:04 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I strongly disagree that consistency with other Gtk+ applications is
> more important than basic usability. The GtkFileChooser is just
> stunningly broken — and by accepting its stupidity wholesale, that means
> that Evolution has regresse
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:19 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:47 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> > Well, they do not do it right, and this kind of "outsourcing" proved to
> > be problematic in the past, thus why to rely on something nonworking
> > with "not our fault, ask them to f
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:19 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:47 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> > Well, they do not do it right, and this kind of "outsourcing" proved to
> > be problematic in the past, thus why to rely on something nonworking
> > with "not our fault, ask them to f
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 14:47 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> Well, they do not do it right, and this kind of "outsourcing" proved to
> be problematic in the past, thus why to rely on something nonworking
> with "not our fault, ask them to fix it" explanation? I always thought
> we do software for people,
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 07:41 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:12 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> > Is there any objection? If not, then I'll revert the mentioned commit in
> > sources next week or so.
>
> Please don't. GTK+ claims to handle this now, we should defer to them
> so
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:12 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> Is there any objection? If not, then I'll revert the mentioned commit in
> sources next week or so.
Please don't. GTK+ claims to handle this now, we should defer to them
so our Open/Save dialogs behave consistently with other GTK+ apps. If
t
10 matches
Mail list logo
