[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.



To follow the path: look to the master, follow the master, 
walk with the master, see through the master, become the master.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]