[Epiphany] Re: Epiphany RPM packages for RH9

["David Adam Bordoley" <bordoley msu edu>]

Osma Ahvenlampi writes: 

> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 12:14, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> > Gnome2.. if it can't be a default, it's not worth being there at all.. 
>> 
>> That's not what I've read. From what Havoc says I think the main point is 
>> that the preferences should be a minimum. Only what makes sense to 
>> end-users, everything else can go into gconf if it makes sense to have it.
> 
> That's over-simplifying the issue (well, so was mine, but..) Yes, there
> are situations where having a gconf key makes sense, while having a
> widget in a preferences panel does not. Those situations are however
> basically reduced to cases where that way it's possible to avoid
> hardcoding addresses or other variables into the application. 
> 
> Settings which introduce functionality differences add complexity to the
> application whether or not they're exposed in a preferences panel.
> Additional complexity == more bug opportunities, especially when you
> start considering combinations.

This is my take on epiphany and preferences. Preferences are not a way to 
create a user defined ui. Preferences are a way to change how certain 
aspects of the ui work. For example we don't add a pref for including a 
bookmarks menu, we do include a pref for how the home button should behave. 
If you look at most of the prefs, nearly all of them affect behavior and 
interaction, but are not ways of self configuring how the widgets look and 
feel. 

dave