On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 19:20, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>> Simon proposed a feature http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Can_share
>> with a similar use case. Right now, the shell doesn't know if the activity
>> can share or not.
>
> +1
>
> A stand
On 13 Dec 2011, at 19:20, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Simon proposed a feature http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Can_share
> with a similar use case. Right now, the shell doesn't know if the activity
> can share or not.
+1
A standard variable was introduced into the activity side quite some tim
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of 2011-12-13 20:55:01 +0100:
> Just point at the wiki where the info is kept.
> Requested by Sascha Silbe.
Reviewed-by: Sascha Silbe
Thanks for the patch.
Sascha
--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signa
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of 2011-12-13 21:01:10 +0100:
> This binary has been moved to sugar-toolkit-gtk3 in a commit
> titled:
> sugar-activity: import and make independent of sugar-toolkit GTK versions
>
> sugar-toolkit-gtk3 is deemed as a more suitable home as sugar-activity
> is
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of 2011-12-13 20:54:25 +0100:
> We no longer compile this against pygtk, so remove the include.
> Add the now-required Python.h include in its place.
Reviewed-By: Sascha Silbe
Sascha
--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/
signature.asc
D
On 13/12/11 16:54, Daniel Drake wrote:
We no longer compile this against pygtk, so remove the include.
Add the now-required Python.h include in its place.
---
src/sugar3/_sugarbaseextmodule.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/sugar3/_sugarbaseextmodu
On 13/12/11 16:47, Daniel Drake wrote:
As we move to adding support for a second UI toolkit (GTK+ 3.x),
the sugar-activity binary used by all activities must become
backend-toolkit-independent. It would be wasteful to have two backend
toolkits loaded in memory, and in the GTK2/GTK3 case, it is im
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> This patch accompanies a sugar patch titled
> "sugar-activity: make independent of sugar-toolkit GTK versions"
Just to unconfuse me and others that may be reading, this patch is
still required in its exact form even despite the slight change o
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Sascha Silbe
wrote:
> During todays Development Team meeting [1], we we agreed that Daniel
> Drake will maintain the new sugar-toolkit-gtk3 together with Simon
> Schampijer, leaving me free to focus on the existing Glucose modules
> (also together with Simon).
Th
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of 2011-12-09 22:25:28 +0100:
>
>> As we move to adding support for a second UI toolkit (GTK+ 3.x),
>> the sugar-activity binary used by all activities must become
>> backend-toolkit-independent.
Just to c
This binary has been moved to sugar-toolkit-gtk3 in a commit
titled:
sugar-activity: import and make independent of sugar-toolkit GTK versions
sugar-toolkit-gtk3 is deemed as a more suitable home as sugar-activity
is somewhat specific to activities built with sugar-toolkit.
>From this point onwar
Just point at the wiki where the info is kept.
Requested by Sascha Silbe.
---
MAINTAINERS |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 MAINTAINERS
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
new file mode 100644
index 000..379f8ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@
We no longer compile this against pygtk, so remove the include.
Add the now-required Python.h include in its place.
---
src/sugar3/_sugarbaseextmodule.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/sugar3/_sugarbaseextmodule.c b/src/sugar3/_sugarbaseextmodule.c
ind
As we move to adding support for a second UI toolkit (GTK+ 3.x),
the sugar-activity binary used by all activities must become
backend-toolkit-independent. It would be wasteful to have two backend
toolkits loaded in memory, and in the GTK2/GTK3 case, it is impossible
(importing both results in an in
Simon proposed a feature http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Can_share
with a similar use case. Right now, the shell doesn't know if the activity
can share or not.
Gonzalo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:26 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> I was playing with Sugar collaboration between my XO-1.75 and
you're right, confused the 2.. groupthink was indeed promising I was
thinking about sugarize :-) I'll delve deeper into groupthink... IF I
understand enough of it before it makes my head explode...
kind regards,
David
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmsch...@fas.harvar
On 12/13/2011 01:57 PM, David Van Assche wrote:
> Played with that, wasnt quite what I was looking for. It basically skins
> an app (lets say a gtk app) and makes it look like its a part of sugar...
> but it doesn't really gie u access to how the collaborative functions work...
Uhh, nope. Maybe y
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:37 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Are any of the public collaboration servers still up?
>
> I worked my way pretty far down
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Community_Jabber_servers without finding
> a server that would let me register. I am using an XO-1.75 build, so
> per
Played with that, wasnt quite what I was looking for. It basically skins an
app (lets say a gtk app) and makes it look like its a part of sugar... but
it doesn't really gie u access to how the collaborative functions work...
but its a good step for quickly porting apps to sugar sure
kind rega
On 12/13/2011 01:37 PM, David Van Assche wrote:
> I've got a sort
> of halted project which I really want to make collaborative, but am unsure
> how to move forward and include... I guess I was asking for some pointers
> towards really good documentation to make this a reality.
You might like
htt
Yeah, I'm sorry if it came across that way, its just that I've got a sort
of halted project which I really want to make collaborative, but am unsure
how to move forward and include... I guess I was asking for some pointers
towards really good documentation to make this a reality.
kind regards,
Dav
Are any of the public collaboration servers still up?
I worked my way pretty far down
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Community_Jabber_servers without finding
a server that would let me register. I am using an XO-1.75 build, so
perhaps collaboration is just busted in this build? If someone could
po
I'm trying not to open the can of worms which is "how should we best
implement collaboration". In this thread, let's just concentrate on
"how do we discover collaborative activities when we're playing with
our friends"?
--scott
--
( http://cscott.net/ )
___
How much has been done in terms of centralising the collaborative aspects
of applications by using the latest and greatest innovations to telepathy,
which surely must by now have many many hooks to allow for the funkiest of
ways to quickly and easily integrate collaborative sessions.
I suppose the
I was playing with Sugar collaboration between my XO-1.75 and my
crazy-nephew's XO-1.5 over the weekend. We wanted to "play together",
but it was hard to find which activities would let us do so.
What if we added a small badge (perhaps the "ring of dots" used to
switch an activity from 'private'
Hello everyone!
During todays Development Team meeting [1], we we agreed that Daniel
Drake will maintain the new sugar-toolkit-gtk3 together with Simon
Schampijer, leaving me free to focus on the existing Glucose modules
(also together with Simon).
Good luck to the new (and old) maintainers!
Sas
Hi,
for those that could not attend, here the logs:
Minutes:
http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2011-12-13T15:00:22.html
Log:
http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2011-12-13T15:00:22
Regards,
Simon
___
Sugar-dev
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of 2011-12-09 22:25:28 +0100:
> As we move to adding support for a second UI toolkit (GTK+ 3.x),
> the sugar-activity binary used by all activities must become
> backend-toolkit-independent.
Given that sugar-activity is the only thing in sugar that Python-base
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Sascha Silbe
wrote:
> The patch we're talking about is a Request For Discussion (RFC) based on
> sucrose-0.94; we'd appreciate feedback on the chosen approach (including
> design and implementation). When the patch is ready (including
> integrating useful feedback
29 matches
Mail list logo
