Hey Bastien, On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Bastien Nocera <[email protected]> wrote:
> I commented on the xdg-user-dirs patches. It's mostly fine, but still > has the same problem as the first set of patches, which is going to be > about organising conflicts between applications. > Thanks for the comments; I am a bit unclear how you would like to see the current patchset change to address that. Could you give me an example? I thought I implemented the suggestion from your initial mail. A couple of things that I'd like before merging all this: > - verify that transifex or another system is in place to update and be > reactive to new translations > I see translation commits in master, so I was assuming this worked already. Is there anything in my patchset you think would result in a change in that regard? - a test suite, verifying that files get moved properly, get renamed, > etc. as expected. > Definitely; this is something I wanted too and I will work on it next. Other than that, I'm happy with the changes, even if the man pages are > still on the short side to me. > OK, I will try to expand that too. Either way, since the patchset is pretty large as it is, I'd love to be able to merge the refactors/GLib port without the new user directories feature in the meantime. Another thing that would greatly benefit the code is porting it to GIO. I initially didn't do that to reduce the churn and introduce a dependency on GObject, but in retrospect I don't see why not - practically speaking everyone shipping GLib already also ships GObject/GIO. What do you think? Thanks, Cosimo
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
