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

Re: F8 desktop features





On 7/27/07, Kristian Høgsberg <krh bitplanet net> wrote:
On 7/27/07, dragoran <drago01 gmail com> wrote:
> On 7/27/07, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> wrote:
> > Given that test1 is around the corner, I thought it might be a good idea
> > to give a little status update on the features that the desktop team has
> > been working on for F8:
>
> what happend to compiz-fusion?

I've been punting this issue for a while; sorry about that, I should
have been more involed in the debate there.  I have two concerns about
the proposed updates:

1) I'd rather not ship a git snap shot for fedora 8.  If we know that
there's a stable release on the horizon, that is, coming out withing
the next 1 or 2 months, we can do an update, but if there's no
expectation that a stable release is coming out in time for fedora 8,
I'd rather wait.  The concern here is mainly that we're starting to
ship externally packaged plugins for compiz and we need an upstream
maintenence branch (0.6) that maintains a stable plugin API.  I don't
know what the compiz schedule is for the current development branch
but it still sees plugin API breaking changes at this time.  As far as
I know, there's hasn't been a stable release since the merge, but if
most of the API changes to allow beryl plugins to run have been
merged, maybe it would be a good idea to wind down and release 0.6?

I asked about this a while ago and David wanted to release a 0.5.2 and a 0.6.0  a bit later...
what happend to this? David?

2) I don't know what the current status is on config plugins.  I know
there is interest in getting ccp configured as the default backend,
but I don't know what the benefits of that is over gconf.  I
understand that gconf is GNOME specific, but I was thinking that the
better approach was to move gconf and gtk-window-decorator to a new
compiz-gnome subpackage.  What is the compiz upstream position?  My
position is that we need to use the native configuration system of the
desktop environment (that is, gconf when running under GNOME) and
reinventing new config file formats is almost never the right approach
(no matter how fun it is).

ccp has a gconf and a konf backend so we can just use this. the  benefit  over gconf  are the configuration tools that already exist for it.
there was a thread on fedora-devel-list about this...


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