[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mlview-hacking] Initial patch for Gnome 2 support
From: |
Dodji Seketeli |
Subject: |
Re: [Mlview-hacking] Initial patch for Gnome 2 support |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:28:13 +0200 (MEST) |
User-agent: |
IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.42 |
Hi Malcolm,
I am very very sorry for this huge delay ...
Shame on me.
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 03:37, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Waow !! You got into the task very quickly man !! Congrats and
> > thank you.
>
> Advantages of not having a job at the moment :-)
I don't know if i can say that, but, sometimes, not having a job,
can be seen as a blessing :) if you still can code of course :)
(...)
> I don't think that plugins are a good way to go at the moment.
I agree ... i am too busy know.
(...)
> > For the time being, you can maintain a gnome2 port source tree of
> > mlview. I can add this new tree on savannah. Just tell me. Do you
> think
> > you will have the time to do deal with that task ?
> I'm rather worried about how we'd keep the two trees "in sync". I
> don't
> think there's a great deal that needs to be different between them, and
> as
> patches come in they'd mostly need to be applied to both. Is there a
> way of
> automatically merging changes between two versions of the codebase in
> CVS?
> (the "branches" feature, perhaps)
>
> How do you see this working? I can't really answer your question
> without
> knowing how this would work.
Well, as you mentioned it, i think creating a branch GNOME2-PORT will make it.
But i must keep in mind that there are numerous cases where reporting
modifications done in other branches into the GNOME2-PORT branch will take
the classical diff/patch/merge tools :)
> >
> > On the documentation front, i have a lot to tell you about the
> > document/view design of mlview. I have started an architecture design
> > but that task is a bit stalled for the moment :(
>
> I've read through the architecture notes on the website and through the
>
> generated source documentation. They're pretty good already.
Yeah, maybe.
But this documentation definitely needs to be improved.
> I was merely worried in my email about how rigid the model/view
> separation is, and the best way of finding that out is probably to go
> ahead
> and write a new view class. So that's what I plan to do, and we'll see
>
> what "comes out in the wash".
I am ok with that.
Regards,
Dodji
--
To follow the path: look to the master, follow the master,
walk with the master, see through the master, become the master.