To elaborate on the previous remark: why didn't we just replace:
menu_monitor_queue_event (event_info);
with:
g_timeout_add_seconds (2, menu_monitor_queue_event, event_info);
(and make sure menu_monitor_queue_event() returns FALSE)?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
The latest patch looks good to me, but with a couple of notes (no need
to fix these):
- using the _full() version of the timeout call is not necessary here
- now that this patch is simplified it becomes easy to see how all of
this is just putting values into one structure and then later moving
The patch in comment 42 is not acceptable, for two big reasons.
First: you need to hold a ref on the GFile object when you put it into
the info struct. This means that you cannot simply use g_free for the
struct: you need to write a custom free func that handles the unref as
well. Also: you can'
Although I agree that it makes sense to allow the user to modify their
own data even if not "actively logged in", I think it would also be
interesting to track down the program that is the real source of this
problem. ie: let's figure out which part of the session is writing to
accountsservice at
4 matches
Mail list logo
