Re: Category design issues

[rms39 columbia edu (Russell Steinthal)]

On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:56:36 PDT, doctor jest wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Russell Steinthal wrote:
>
>> I prefer the second method, since it's intuitive and
>> easy to extend for new per-category properties.  The
>> downside, of course, is that it uses an entire config
>> file just for categories.
>
>i also prefer this method. given that many users will
>probably define more than 2 or 3 custom categories, a single
>file would quickly become unwieldy.
>
>do you plan to provide a default set of categories?

Probably a good idea; I'm not sure exactly how (do we distribute 
default config files already?), but I suspect we will.  (Miguel has 
said he thinks there should be defaults as well, in an earlier 
message.)

>> Anyway, that's what I'm working on... Comments,
>> particularly from those whose code I'm hacking on, are
>> welcome.
>
>ive been using gnomecal for a couple months now, and my main
>(immediate) beef is that there's no status support. ideally
>i could generate a list of events and todos with a
>particular status, and i could filter the views based on
>status. currently when i complete a todo item i have to
>delete it so that its not cluttering my todo list; id prefer
>to mark it completed, removing it from the view but not from
>the calendar store.
 
Hmm... I hadn't noticed that, but yes, that is an important feature 
which is missing.  (To tell the truth, I haven't switched from ical 
to gnomecal for my actual calendaring, and probably won't until I 
finish adding some of the improvements I want.)

>ive never really done any gnome or gtk hacking before so it
>may take me a bit of time to come up to speed with the
>environment and with terminology. to whom should i send
>patches?

Well, I'm not the maintainer, but if nobody else volunteers, you can 
send them to me since I'm working in the to-do code as it is.  In 
general, you can always try asking the people who are listed in the 
AUTHORS file in the distribution (or in CVS).

BTW, if you're going to be working in the to-do code, you'll probably 
want to base your patches off of the code in CVS, not the tarballs; 
since I'm working in many of the same functions, a patch relative to 
the tarball might not apply particularly cleanly otherwise.

-Russell


-- 
Russell Steinthal		Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rms39@columbia.edu>		Columbia College, Class of 1999
<steintr@nj.org>		UNIX System Administrator, nj.org

NOTE: My address steintr@avnet.org will stop working in approximately
two weeks...  Use one of the current alternatives listed above!