<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bjt23@cornell.edu">bjt23@cornell.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On 06/13/2009 02:18 PM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:<br> <div class="im">> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:<br> >> 1. Passive vs. active notifications. I recall that notify-osd<br> >> unilaterally decided that the 'actions' bit of the spec was Bad[tm] and<br> >> that notifications should be entirely passive and not accept input.<br> ><br> > I would rather not start a discussion on this subject: it has been<br> > debated to death and people won't change their mind.<br> <br> </div>That's rather closed-minded. But I suppose if Canonical wants to go<br> their own way and ignore community consensus, it's free to do so.</blockquote><div><br>They know my stance on this one. Upstream libnotify and notification-daemon will always support actions. These are too useful and too many people want them. So at that point, it's really up to the developers to choose what they want, and whether they want to accept patches to get rid of actions or not. And it's up to Canonical to decide if they want to maintain a patchset for all apps to strip actions, or reverse their policy on that.<br> <br>I'll fight any change to remove action support from the spec to the death :)<br><br>Christian<br></div></div><br clear="all">-- <br>Christian Hammond - <a href="mailto:chipx86@chipx86.com">chipx86@chipx86.com</a><br> Review Board - <a href="http://www.review-board.org">http://www.review-board.org</a><br>VMware, Inc. - <a href="http://www.vmware.com">http://www.vmware.com</a><br> <br>