On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:53 AM, John Stowers <john.stowers.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I announced it here when I released the first version, but nobody >> replied so I don't really know how other efforts are faring or how >> much interest there still is. > > I tried and liked it, but could not really be bothered to deal with the > required mutter fork longterm.
Mmm, fair enough. I had hoped that using 0install would make that easy, but it seems that my compiled version either doesn't work for some or that people aren't keen on using 0install. Or you may have other patches to mutter you want to maintain yourself. I believe someone's keeping an arch package up to date for shellshape-mutter, which is nice of them. > I saw in BZ you are trying to get some of the needed bits upstream. How > is that going? Somewhat glacially, I'm afraid. I guess they're not high priority compared to fixes and 3.2 features, but it's a bit disheartening. I've got one simple patch in so far: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653858 But am still waiting on two more that I've submitted patches for: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651899 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655615 ..and the big one, which I have no idea how to fix - keyboard shortcuts. This seems like the biggest issue of all, that would probably need a decent restructure to accomodate. On the plus side, this is not a unique bug for me - it should affect *anyone* who wants to add new keybindings after compile-time. But I don't know that there's much enthusiasm for allowing that, having received no comments after two months: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651901 I could submit a patch that instead adds all the keybindings I want, but I presume that has zero chance of being accepted (they're completely meaningless to the rest of mutter). Cheers, - Tim. _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
