Re: gtk-hp-patches

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes: 
> yes, i'm aware. and i paid attention to that in the process suggestion
> at the end of my email.
> 

Sorry, I hadn't read the end of the mail yet. Your process suggestion
looks good. 

BTW, on the dialog and inline pixbuf stuff, in most of those cases I
did read what you said and in fact followed up and said why I didn't
do what you said. Either that or Owen didn't agree so I just left it
until you guys could decide. I don't want to change it to make Tim
happy then change it back to make Owen happy then change it back
again...

So I'll repost all the issues separately, according to your
suggestion, and we can re-discuss them. Will try to summarize the open
questions about each patch.

Also BTW, yes I do know to use gchar not char, etc., etc., the problem
is that I keep switching which codebase I'm working on and they all
have different rules, so these are basically typos, if I had noticed
them I would have fixed them... so please, point them out when
possible.  Either that or you need to finally sit down and write a
perl script that makes things match the GTK coding standards
perfectly. ;-) Or at least you guys need to agree on stuff like
g_assert() and then write it down someplace!

> oh please, couldn't you at least go ahead and commit the first few items
> i mentioned (text, progress) then rehash the remaining pixbuf inlining bits
> and concentrate on the rest after that is committed as well?
> without comparing the new patch line-by-line against the old one i doubt
> we can make much sense out of a new monster, and that's exactly what i wanted
> to avoid ;)
> 

Right, I'll do that.

Havoc