Re: background/font capplets

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 23:38, Seth Nickell wrote:
> Because the rewrite was done more than a month and a half ago.

I didn't really intend to get myself involved in what could turn into
something nasty :/ but from the perspective of releasing and testing it
doesn't matter when it was written, only when it was released to
testers. I'm extremely nervous about making this big a change this late,
and hope that this won't indicate a trend of major changes at this
point. We should all be extremely focused on bug-fixing by now- there
are 120+ bugs of Immediate, Urgent, or High priority in bugzilla... I'd
hate to see people's attention drift from those. :/

Luis

> On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 20:08, Luis Villa wrote:
> > OK, so... maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but why are we doing
> > what sounds a lot like a complete rewrite at this point in the game? 
> > Luis
> > 
> > On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 22:43, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > 
> > > Bradford Hovinen <hovinen ximian com> writes:
> > > > > This is silly. It means porting the existing background capplet to the
> > > > > new schemas, a non-trivial task. The new background capplet is basically
> > > > > a rewrite, and is compatible with the new schemas. "Seperating" the
> > > > > schemas patch from the ui patch essentially means rewriting both pieces
> > > > > of code, because they aren't really separable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please voice your supposed complaints about the combined patch and I'll
> > > > > try to resolve the issues. If you had just done that in the first place
> > > > > (weeks ago!!!) this could have *easily* been resolved by now.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sorry it's more work for you, but that is the only condition under
> > > > which I will accept the patch.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So my understanding is that we have a grid:
> > > 
> > >         old backend     new backend
> > > old UI     A 
> > > new UI                     B
> > > 
> > > So we have A, and Seth wrote B; I haven't looked at the code, but I do
> > > understand Seth's point that adding the other two cells basically
> > > triples the work to make the change. If we're ending up at B anyway, I
> > > don't really get the point of the exercise, I have to admit.
> > > 
> > > What is the rationale here? Just ease of reviewing the patch? Or do
> > > you really only want half of it in the end?
> > > 
> > > Havoc
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list