Re: Approval for no proxy patches

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 07:03, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au> writes:
[...]
> > With respect to this patch, could you possibly elaborate on why you are
> > "less than thrilled with it". It's been through a couple of rounds of
> > review (see the bug report) and is pretty well tested (including with
> > IPv6) on my systems; I am using this patch every day now, since things
> > are pretty unusable without it as I move between networks. I am happy to
> > mess around with the patch as required to meet whatever minor complaints
> > people may have -- the coding style and variable naming schemes, etc, in
> > gnome-vfs is hardly a model of consistency. If you have major design
> > issues, then you need to explain them to me in small words and short
> > sentences, since I cannot read minds.
> 
> I'm less then thrilled with it because we're a month away from releasing
> 2.4 and it's not easy to just look at it and say it's obviously correct.
> Still, given that its gotten testing and Alex is alright with it, I'd be
> willing to let it go in.

Aah, if that's your reason, then I am on your side of the argument. :-)

I was a bit annoyed (at myself) to miss the feature freeze, but I it
seems unprofessional to not have a way to set it and just have it work
(see, I am not *completely* oblivious to peoples' desktop goals -- just
mostly oblivious).

Maybe it's a "no harm" patch, since it doesn't regress the system if you
don't know it's there (except in Epiphany and Galeon where they may have
removed the old setting, but I think that's meant to be a GConf
"no-no").

Alex, Christopher: I guess it's up to you guys. I would prefer to leave
it out until GNOME 2.5, just to stay with the process, but it you feel
comfortable putting it in, I'll accept responsibility for the patch.

Cheers,
Malcolm