Re: [GitLab] IMPORTANT: Mass migration plan

Hi Milan,

2018-03-21 8:53 UTC+01:00, Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>:
Your module rename may mean also renaming in distributions, thus it
should not be done in a rush and "just because we can". At least from
my point of view. You also lose some kind of mind share with the
rename, because existing users know what it is called now, but will be
lost when you rename the module […]

I completely agree with you, the renaming of an old and known
application is always a hard thing to decide and to do, and that’s why
it definitively needs discussions. Note that I don’t feel any hurry
here (in fact, I’m talking here and there about this renaming since
two years…), but depending on how hard it looks like to do the
renaming *after* the Gitlab migration, it could be good to do it
*during* the move. That’s the only reason of my mail, asking if it’d
be better to do it at the same time.

But as you asked, let’s explain a little the reasoning anyway.

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 07:56 +0100, Arnaud Bonatti wrote:
the future name of ‘dconf-editor’ needs discussions (‘Registry’ and
‘Tinkerings’ are the best I came with

[…] Does dconf-editor talk only to DConf, or it's
available for any GSettings backend? If the later, then the most
accurate (but maybe not the nicest) name would be "gsettings-editor".

The main problem really is here: `dconf-editor` doesn’t do any dconf
edition in an usual GNOME installation. Yes, it’s confusing.

To explain a little to everybody what we’re talking about: “gsettings”
is the settings part of the GLib API, used by all Gtk+/GNOME
applications; “dconf” is an underlying system, that should not be used
directly by applications developpers (it is used by the GLib library,
and could be replaced by something else at one point); “gconf” is the
previous configuration system, that has been replaced by “dconf”.

“dconf-editor” has been designed as a way to edit directly dconf keys
first (copying the UI of “gconf-editor”, that was used similarly for
gconf). Since 3.20 dconf-editor is gsettings-based for usual cases;
there has been some usual corner cases that needed dconf edits. Since
the last release, 3.28, the usual corner cases are using gsettings
calls, so in an usual GNOME installation, you shouldn’t do any dconf
edits (dconf reads are always needed, but that’s because the GLib API
needs improvements).

I’m not done with dconf edits, there are some other corner cases
(Flatpaks, I’m looking at you…). But dconf-editor might start in a not
so long future to ask the user to “remove keys without schemas”, and
that means removing keys defined by dconf but not by gsettings… here
the terminology starts to be really uncomfortable if the app name
remains “dconf-editor”.

So, yes, “gsettings-editor” would already be a real improvement on
“dconf-editor”, and it would even follow the same naming convention
(and I understand how that would be good). It’s not an excluded option
for a rename, but I have two/three problems with it:
 – first, it doesn’t follow GNOME 3 naming conventions of centering on
the objects instead of the actions (my English here is bad, but “Web”
is for viewing the _Web_, “Files” for browsing _files_, “Tweaks” are
for editing _tweaks_, and “dconf-editor” is not for editing
_dconf-editors_), and
 – I’d like to have some sort of continuity between Settings
(installed by default) < Tweaks (recommanded for usual configurations
change) < ?? (other changes not recommanded);
 – secondly, in a long-term future, there might be some other
configurations system added (QSettings, etc.), and I’d like to not
have to rename/fork every three years, for obvious reasons. :·)

Let’s talk now of my (currently) preferred propositions.

With 'Registry', well, it's too generic and I'd say "Hello Windows"
when I see it anywhere on Linux.

Yes. Because the app can become generic; and because this way, it’d be
clear what the application is about, as everybody knows what the
“Windows Registry” (aka “regedit”) is, while most people don’t know
what “dconf” is, nor what “gsettings” is. And I also understand
completely why desrt vetoed this option, as gsettings is designed to
avoid all the problems the Windows Registry has had. I wouldn’t be
surprised that the community doesn’t retain that name, but I like it
anyway, just for clarity reasons. :·)

The last name I came with is “Tinkerings”. Note that I’m not natively
speaking English, so I may miss something, but I came with
“Bidouillages” in French, and they etymologically look similar. It’s
generic enough for whatever evolution the application could have
(clearly), it also highlights that the user has the complete
responsibility of his/her edits, and that editing that way is clearly
not recommanded if you don’t exactly know what you’re doing. All these
things are important for a good name.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for sharing. :·) Do you now understand more why I want to rename?


Arnaud Bonatti
courriel : arnaud bonatti gmail com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]