cosimo.cecchi at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 21:55:04 UTC 2016
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Bastien Nocera <hadess at hadess.net> wrote:
> I commented on the xdg-user-dirs patches. It's mostly fine, but still
> has the same problem as the first set of patches, which is going to be
> about organising conflicts between applications.
Thanks for the comments; I am a bit unclear how you would like to see the
current patchset change to address that.
Could you give me an example? I thought I implemented the suggestion from
your initial mail.
A couple of things that I'd like before merging all this:
> - verify that transifex or another system is in place to update and be
> reactive to new translations
I see translation commits in master, so I was assuming this worked already.
Is there anything in my patchset you think would result in a change in that
- a test suite, verifying that files get moved properly, get renamed,
> etc. as expected.
Definitely; this is something I wanted too and I will work on it next.
Other than that, I'm happy with the changes, even if the man pages are
> still on the short side to me.
OK, I will try to expand that too.
Either way, since the patchset is pretty large as it is, I'd love to be
able to merge the refactors/GLib port without the new user directories
feature in the meantime.
Another thing that would greatly benefit the code is porting it to GIO. I
initially didn't do that to reduce the churn and introduce a dependency on
GObject, but in retrospect I don't see why not - practically speaking
everyone shipping GLib already also ships GObject/GIO.
What do you think?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg