Re: gnome-panel & gnome-applets?



Excerpts from William Jon McCann's message of vie dic 24 00:32:40 +0100 2010:
> Hi Carlos,

Hi, 

> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Carlos Garcia Campos
> <carlosgc gnome org> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Frederic Peters's message of jue dic 23 10:22:40 +0100 2010:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> >> > I am confused, what's the story with gnome-panel and gnome-applets in
> >> > 3.0? Are they in, are they out? If gnome 3 is to support gnome2 compat
> >> > mode, both of these components should stay in for some while, right?
> >> > Currently, the situation in in jhbuild is very strange: gnome-panel is
> >> > still there, gnome-applets are gone. Is this planned? Who'd need the
> >> > panel without the applets?
> >>
> >> I pointed this after the new modulesets were pushed, you can read the
> >> answer Jon gave here:
> >>  http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2010-December/msg00004.html
> >>
> >> The relevant part:
> >>
> >> | >>  - gnome-applets (even if we still have gnome-panel)
> >> |
> >> | RIP.  Essential applets should be part of gnome-panel itself.  It
> >> | doesn't make sense to have applets only in the gnome 2 fallback
> >> | experience.
> >
> > I disagree. If I run gnome-session with the classic mode I expect to
> > see exactly what I have right now, with all the applets. The
> > definition of essential applet is probably different for every user.
> > GNOME 2 fallback experience should be gnome-panel, metacity and
> > gnome-applets.
> 
> It is important to note that there is no such "classic mode".  There
> is a fallback mode for when 3D support is not available.

Then this is confusing:

http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-session/tree/data/classic-gnome.session.desktop.in.in

note that to run the fallback you need something like

$ gnome-session --session classic-gnome

so I would suggest to rename it to fallback or whatever to avoid
confusions, since what I expect from a classic session is what we have
been using for years. 

> The fact
> that it will use some of the GNOME 2 components is mostly an
> implementation detail - it is way more efficient than building
> something else.  (That said, I think someone could hack up a simple
> panel + system status equivalent in javascript in no more than a few
> weeks if they wanted to.  And I think that would actually be
> preferable for a number of reasons.)
>
> There is no "I want a new GNOME but not GNOME 3 mode."  There aren't
> two GNOMEs - only the one we barely have enough help designing,
> building, and testing already.  If you want your system to be exactly
> as it is now my recommendation would be to leave it just as it is
> now.

It's not a problem of what users want, many people want gnome 3 but
they can't run the shell because of the 3D support. What I meant was
that if I can't run gnome-shell (even if I wanted) I expect the
fallback mode to be what I had in gnome 2, because otherwhise gnome 3
will be a regression for non 3D users.

> It doesn't make any sense for the user to have an entirely different
> concept in the fallback that isn't available in the default.  Nor does
> it make any sense for us to provide a developer API and add-on system
> that only works in the fallback mode.

gnome-panel is already an entirely different concept, that's why I
don't see the problem of leaving the applets too. 

> GNOME 3 is a change.  Both the default and the fallback modes will be
> different from GNOME 2.  We can't and shouldn't shy away from that.

I don't know if there are plans to work on gnome-panel for gnome 3,
but in this moment the panel is exactly the same, or even worse since
it doesn't even work with gtk3. 

> People who don't desire such changes are not obligated to make them.
> 

I agree, note that I'm thinking of people who can't use the shell (and
fortunately I'm not one of those anymore, since I bought a new laptop
recently and I took care of buying it with an intel video card to make
sure I'll be able to use gnome3 with gnome-shell)

Regards, 
-- 
Carlos Garcia Campos
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x523E6462

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]