Re: [gnome-flashback] The case for other WMs (was: Re: [gnome-panel] Pass --session-name from desktop files.)

[Alberts Muktupāvels <alberts muktupavels gmail com>]

And this is not just a problem for that one patch, it is the case for
multiple of your own patches you pushed yesterday and today.
One of them also broke libpanel-applet API and ABI, without dicussing an
ABI break beforehand here, and also without bumping the version number.

That change even does not require rebuild other applets. And bump version from 4.0 to 4.1 wont make problems.

 

What do you hope to achieve by just pushing it ? Force someone to review
it immediately, and after-the-fact ? You can ask/re-ask nicely for a
review on this list, but nobody (me included) magically has more time
for Gnome Flashback just because you create a big mess in master. Force

I am not asking to review immediately... And what you meant with big mess? Did I broke something? Removed something without approval or what? It still works, it works better and you call it big mess. I am not afraid to break something, we (I) can fix it or revert if really made things worse. Mistakes doesn't make only those who do nothing.

 

me to test it all before pushing out 3.9.91 ? All you accomplished is
that I will feel much less confident about the state of master, and will
either need to revert everything comitted by you at once, or postpone
the 3.9.91 release until I have A-LOT-OF-SPARE-TIME™.

If you feel so than go and revert all if necessary. Also why 3.9.91? It still can be 3.8.1.

 

If you keep abusing your commit privileges like this, they can and will
be revoked. :-(

Feel free to do it.

> Ok, but that means we need wrapper script for each session? One more
> thing, TryExec is used to determinate if this session should be shown
> or not. Am I correct? If so than should not we change TryExec line for
> at mutter and compiz session to TryExec=mutter and TryExec=compiz. We
> don't want show these sessions if these window managers are not available.
The tryexec thing is a good idea, though you might want to list absolute
paths.

Why absolute?

 

So basically, nobody except Ubuntu cares about compiz at this point.

So you are saying only ubuntu users use compiz? Seems it is possible to install compiz on fedora too, so I guess there are fedora users who are using compiz too.

 

And we have only very limited support capabilities, so I am not
interested in supporting multiple configurations upstream.

Is anybody here interested in supporting other WMs except
metacity/mutter ? If so, please speak up now, and make the case for
supporting other WMs.

gnome panel works with compiz. why could not we provide session for it?

 

Otherwise, we should make it perfectly clear to downstreams that it is
not OK to ship a "Gnome Flashback (Compiz)" - the Gnome Flashback name
is specifically reserved for a replacement for the old fallback mode.
Let them name it "Gnome + Compiz" or whatever.

Why would it not be ok to ship Gnome Flashback (Compiz). If it is still flashback session, but only with compiz than it makes sense to name it Gnome Flashback (Compiz) no Gnome + Compiz.

 

About mutter:
I know the mutter codebase is interesting, in that it has already done
the hard work of porting to GTK+ 3. But current mutter cannot run
without OpenGL, which goes somewhat against our initial mission
statement. And I'm not aware if anybody actually regularly runs mutter
without gnome-shell.
Again: if anybody has any experience to share here and is willing to
support it, please make the case for it. Otherwise I'm inclined to veto
this as well.

Have you thought that gnome flashback might be used for other reasons not only because nothing else is working on peoples old hardware?

I don't like gnome shell, unity, windows 8 or any other new stuff. I like old panels and i want use it for long, long time...