On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:28 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>
>> Federico, there is *NO* need for such changes. you've outlined your
>> planned cancellation changes and gotten at least 3 replies from Kris
>> and me describing:
>
> A little while back yo
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:28 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> Federico, there is *NO* need for such changes. you've outlined your
> planned cancellation changes and gotten at least 3 replies from Kris
> and me describing:
A little while back you got several mails from me on why
GInitiallyUnowned was a ba
On 8/31/06, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm ready to commit some changes for libgnomeui/file-chooser which
> *will* break GTK+, but which are needed in the long run. These are the
> changes which make the async callbacks have different cancelation
> semantics. I'll work
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 10:57 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> I'm ready to commit some changes for libgnomeui/file-chooser which
> *will* break GTK+, but which are needed in the long run. These are the
> changes which make the async callbacks have
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 10:57 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > I'm getting kind of nervous that RC1 for GNOME 2.16 is a few days away.
> > Help is much appreciated to finish the tasks above that are not done.
>
> Any news on this? We could roll a RC2 soonish if this helps with
> testing.
Kris has a
Le jeudi 17 août 2006, à 21:43, Federico Mena Quintero a écrit :
> OK, so here's the plan of action.
[snip the plan and everything]
> I'm getting kind of nervous that RC1 for GNOME 2.16 is a few days away.
> Help is much appreciated to finish the tasks above that are not done.
Any news on this?
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>
> >> there are two ways to handle this properly, in a way that doesn't need
> >> to intermix cancellation semantics with closure/memory maintenance.
> >> if your closure references an object that the callback needs, you
> >> can either f
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:55 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>
>> the reason we didn't have these semantics in the first place is that
>> because the file operations may be executed *asyncronously*, cancellation
>> can fail.
>
> Yes, cancellation can fai
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:55 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> the reason we didn't have these semantics in the first place is that
> because the file operations may be executed *asyncronously*, cancellation
> can fail.
Yes, cancellation can fail, but it turns out that you normally don't
care about that.
On 8/17/06, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Plan of action
> ==
>
> 1. Add assertions in GtkFileSystemGnomeVFS so that no async handles
>are outstanding when the file_system's finalizer gets run. DONE.
>
> 2. Add assertions to GtkFileSystemUnix in a similar fa
tor, 17,.08.2006 kl. 16.41 -0500, skrev Federico Mena Quintero:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:38 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
>
> > The async file chooser is extremely broken in gtk+-2.10 right now:
>
> ... plus brilliant things like a ton of compiler warnings in libgnomeui,
> which indicate
Tim Janik wrote:
>> Rationale: the idle loop may be far away in time.
>>
>>
>
>that is easily fixed. if the current code just queues an ordinary idle
>handler, and you notice that's too late, it can be queued at priority
>G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, which results in the handler be called round-robin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> Semantics of callbacks and cancellation
> ===
>
> - You need to hit the idle loop for your callback to be called, just
> like in GnomeVFS.
>
> - You do not need to ever ref/unref async handles; they are opaqu
Matthias Clasen skrev:
> On 8/17/06, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm getting kind of nervous that RC1 for GNOME 2.16 is a few days away.
>> Help is much appreciated to finish the tasks above that are not done.
>>
>
> Thanks for taking the initiative and coming up wi
On 8/17/06, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, so here's the plan of action.
>
> Semantics of callbacks and cancellation
> ===
>
> - You need to hit the idle loop for your callback to be called, just
> like in GnomeVFS.
>
> - You do not ne
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 20:03 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I hate to say it, but the blame for that goes largely to the person
> doing the merge.
So yes, it is in large part my fault :(
Right after Kris merged his async branch into HEAD, I did run
autotestfilechooser, but erroneously assumed th
> - Large chunks of the test suite just fail. It looks like the automated
> test suite never got run after the merge of the async code got done.
I hate to say it, but the blame for that goes largely to the person
doing the merge.
> ... plus brilliant things like a ton of compiler warnings in lib
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:38 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> The async file chooser is extremely broken in gtk+-2.10 right now:
... plus brilliant things like a ton of compiler warnings in libgnomeui,
which indicate that the code wasn't even built with -Wall:
gtkfilesystemgnomevfs.c:979: w
Here's your bearer of bad news...
The async file chooser is extremely broken in gtk+-2.10 right now:
- Overwrite-confirmation doesn't work.
- Large chunks of the test suite just fail. It looks like the automated
test suite never got run after the merge of the async code got done.
- It leaks as
19 matches
Mail list logo
