Re: Major refactoring in seahorse

["Adam Schreiber" <sadam clemson edu>]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Stef <stef-list memberwebs com> wrote:
> Adam Schreiber wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Stef <stef-list memberwebs com> wrote:
>>>  * No more concept of mulitple names on a key, which was how we
>>>   represented Uids before. These have been separate objects
>>>   for a while now, but this was finalized and old code removed.
>>>
>>>   See: pgp/seahorse-pgp-uid.[ch] and various UID usages in pgp/
>>
>> Do the UID objects carry around what their index is even if there are
>> photo ids mixed in?  I think this was what was holding up the
>> revoking/deleting of uids (having to parse the output of gpg).
>
> They do carry around their UID index.
>
> That said, the whole UID thing needs a some love. There are 1 based UIDs
> and zero based UIDs all over seahorse mixed together, which causes bugs.
>
> Perhaps it'd be nice to standardize on zero based UIDs and only convert
> them to 1 based at the last minute where necessary.
>
> What do you think?

That works for me as it would clear up a lot of confusion.  We just
have to remember that all of the key op functions need the ones based
indexing.

Cheers,

Adam