Re: [Utopia] patch for gnome-volume-properties

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 03:39 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:04 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> 
> Fejjer!  Guten nacht!

wot ho!

> 
> > This is a folloup patch to the one I wrote for gnome-volume-manage to
> > make it such that it only updated settings that changed.
> > 
> > For gnome-volume-manager to really benefit from those changes, though,
> > gnome-volume-properties needed to be fixed to not re-save all of the
> > settings anytime any of them changed, thus the attached patch.
> 
> Oh, right.  Yes.
> 
> > I once again used my overly-fun table-driven strategy
> > 
> > A couple things I noticed while hacking away at g-v-p:
> > 
> > 1. all the file entries used the same history_id, CD_CAPPLET_ID. Is this
> > really the intended behaviour? I can imagine the same id being used for
> > CDAs and DVDs (perhaps), but for CDRs as well? Seemed kinda strange...
> > 
> > I'm not even sure CDAs and DVDs sharing the same history id is really
> > desirable, since the commands for each are likely to be completely
> > different. or maybe I just don't understand the idea behind history_id's
> > (I really don't know)
> 
> I thought a history_id was a way of identifying a specific World War II
> point of interest, such as Alsace.  Or Birmingham, Alabama.
> 
> Anyhow, in all honesty, I don't have a clue what that thing is.  If you
> do, feel free to "fix" it.  Please.  Seriously.

we're in the same boat on this one, I have no idea how exactly it is
meant to be used either ;-)

that said, unless someone sheds some light on the issue, I'll make it
work exactly as it was previously (the path of least resistance).

> 
> > 2. the Eject command and the Autorun path settings are not configurable
> > via g-v-p. Is there a reason other than "haven't gotten to it yet"? If
> > that is the case, shall I feel free to hack up a UI for them?
> 
> They aren't settable because they are not intended to be user-visible.
> I mean, can we call ourselves usable if we expose the command for
> ejecting media?  Advanced users, my thought was, can use gconf-editor.

ok, I can agree with that - I was wondering if that might be the reason
but figured I'd make sure it wasn't simply an oversight.

-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com