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

Re: File open dialog: Where is my tab extension



On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 08:50:20AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Miles Bader">
> 
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > >> I have long since acknowledged that any real sanity and innovation is
> > >> coming from the GNOME people and *not* Debian. We just package up their
> > >> stuff and make sure the underlying kernel and GNU userland work. So I
> > >> believe your remarks here are quite off the limit.
> > >
> > > The new gnome way means that we are not supposed to use deep directory
> > > structures, and that we should not use tab completition.
> > 
> > Is this the "maintain user satisfaction by pruning your userbase"
> > strategy?
> 
> No, that's "Sven having a whinge on a list that won't get him any results".

Sorry, but i don't believe so.

Do you really think that all the users should be going to the gnome list
and voice their stuff there ? Sorry, but i can't do that, my mailing
list reading time allotment is already full, and i believe it is the
duty of the debian gnome maintainers to forward those stuff, at least
that is what i do for my packages.

> > Are there any interesting forks of Gnome around?
> 
> So, you're having a discussion on debian-gtk-gnome, which is not a general
> interface with upstream, and you're not getting any results... and then you
> decide you want to use a fork of GNOME?

Well, if it is not a discussion with upstream, at least it is a
discussion with the debian gnome maintainers. 

> Perhaps, instead, it would make sense to talk about the changes with
> upstream, and have the problem fixed! Note that at no stage has upstream
> said "this is not a problem" -> it's thoroughly understood that it is (but

Well the impression i got was that this is the way it is, and that
anyone discontent with it is a power user, and should be able to hit
Ctr+L or set some gconf stuff.

> you'd have to be prepared for the possibility that it may not be solved in
> exactly the way you'd prefer it).

Yeah, thanks all the same.

> So please, instead of having an extended, pointless thread (with grinding
> and gnashing of teeth) on this list, take your concerns upstream where they
> can actually be addressed.

And add another list to the ones i read, no thanks. I will never get
time to do packaging if i go this way.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: