Re: migrating to new backend format

[Frank Worsley <fworsley shaw ca>]

Umm, what exactly is the pressing reason to move to a new format? This
seems like a huge hassle to me. The current format works pretty well
doesn't it?

Also, with new format, do you mean not using libxml but instead using
gmarkup or are you talking about using one monolitic file instead of
lots of little files?

- Frank


On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 12:55, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If we use the patch to coalesce gconf XML files, then ~/.gconf will
> become unreadable to GNOME 2.4 and earlier. That's not allowed.
> 
> So we can create ~/.gconf26 or something (better name?). Given this
> there are these possible migration paths and maybe others:
> 
>  1. Have the gconf path contain ~/.gconf26 in front of ~/.gconf. 
>     In principle, this means that the two will be merged. Unsetting 
>     a setting should nuke the setting from both.
> 
>     Downsides: not well-tested, and creates a permanent efficiency 
>     hit as operations will always check with both backends.
>     Possible extreme weirdness if you log in to GNOME 2.4, change 
>     things in ~/.gconf only, then back into 2.6 and suddenly 
>     have both backends.
> 
>  2. Do a one-time migration (dump/load) from ~/.gconf into the 
>     new ~/.gconf26 (probably the trigger to the migration is that 
>     ~/.gconf exists and ~/.gconf26 doesn't).
> 
>  3. Screw it, you have to reconfigure gnome 2.6 from scratch.
> 
> Havoc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list