Pidgin

--- Mark Doliner <thekingant@...> wrote:

> Log Message:
> sf patch #1370473, from Sadrul Habib Chowdhury
> "This patch fixes the idle time tracking for systems
> that don't use xscreensaver."
> 
> Seems like it would just get rid of some warnings?  But
> whatever, definitely an improvement
> 

For systems that don't use the xscreesaver, gaim_gtk_get_time_idle didn't
return anything, causing a compile-warning, and causing the idle-tracking
to not work (idle.c:check_idle would get zero and hence not show up as
idle).

This is one instance where getting rid of a warning message also fixes a 
bug (albeit a very small one).

-- Adil


	

	
		
__________________________________________________________ 
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs...> - 2005-12-01 02:22 Attachments: Message as HTML      Adil spake unto us the following wisdom: > > Seems like it would just get rid of some warnings? But > > whatever, definitely an improvement >=20 > For systems that don't use the xscreesaver, gaim_gtk_get_time_idle didn't > return anything, causing a compile-warning, and causing the idle-tracking > to not work (idle.c:check_idle would get zero and hence not show up as > idle). >=20 > This is one instance where getting rid of a warning message also fixes a= =20 > bug (albeit a very small one). It sounds like this is not at all a case of just "getting rid" of a warning message ... this is what warning messages are for. :-) "Getting rid" of the warning would have been changing a typecast or something to make it shut up, while the underlying problem remained. Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Mark Doliner <mark@ki...> - 2005-12-01 04:14 On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:40:43 -0500 (EST), Adil wrote > --- Mark Doliner <thekingant@...> wrote: > > > Log Message: > > sf patch #1370473, from Sadrul Habib Chowdhury > > "This patch fixes the idle time tracking for systems > > that don't use xscreensaver." > > > > Seems like it would just get rid of some warnings? But > > whatever, definitely an improvement > > > > For systems that don't use the xscreesaver, gaim_gtk_get_time_idle didn't > return anything, causing a compile-warning, and causing the idle-tracking > to not work (idle.c:check_idle would get zero and hence not show up > as idle). > > This is one instance where getting rid of a warning message also > fixes a bug (albeit a very small one). > > -- Adil Ah, the compile-warning problem didn't occur to me. But there is no 'check_idle' in idle.c. There is a 'check_idleness', however it shouldn't ever call 'idle_ui_ops->get_time_idle();' when xscreensaver is disabled because the idle UI ops are not set when xscreensaver is disabled. Unless I'm missing something. -Mark

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Kevin M Stange <kevin@si...> - 2005-12-01 07:03 Attachments: signature.asc      Mark Doliner wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:40:43 -0500 (EST), Adil wrote >> --- Mark Doliner <thekingant@...> wrote: >> >>> Log Message: >>> sf patch #1370473, from Sadrul Habib Chowdhury >>> "This patch fixes the idle time tracking for systems >>> that don't use xscreensaver." >>> >>> Seems like it would just get rid of some warnings? But >>> whatever, definitely an improvement >>> >> For systems that don't use the xscreesaver, gaim_gtk_get_time_idle did= n't >> return anything, causing a compile-warning, and causing the idle-track= ing >> to not work (idle.c:check_idle would get zero and hence not show up=20 >> as idle). >> >> This is one instance where getting rid of a warning message also=20 >> fixes a bug (albeit a very small one). >> >> -- Adil >=20 > Ah, the compile-warning problem didn't occur to me. But there is no > 'check_idle' in idle.c. There is a 'check_idleness', however it should= n't > ever call 'idle_ui_ops->get_time_idle();' when xscreensaver is disabled= > because the idle UI ops are not set when xscreensaver is disabled. Unl= ess I'm > missing something. >=20 > -Mark >=20 Aren't we doing fallback to Gaim idle tracking when xscreensaver is unavailable? Kevin

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Mark Doliner <mark@ki...> - 2005-12-01 13:42 On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:03:13 -0600, Kevin M Stange wrote > Mark Doliner wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:40:43 -0500 (EST), Adil wrote > >> --- Mark Doliner <thekingant@...> wrote: > >> > >>> Log Message: > >>> sf patch #1370473, from Sadrul Habib Chowdhury > >>> "This patch fixes the idle time tracking for systems > >>> that don't use xscreensaver." > >>> > >>> Seems like it would just get rid of some warnings? But > >>> whatever, definitely an improvement > >>> > >> For systems that don't use the xscreesaver, gaim_gtk_get_time_idle didn't > >> return anything, causing a compile-warning, and causing the idle-tracking > >> to not work (idle.c:check_idle would get zero and hence not show up > >> as idle). > >> > >> This is one instance where getting rid of a warning message also > >> fixes a bug (albeit a very small one). > >> > >> -- Adil > > > > Ah, the compile-warning problem didn't occur to me. But there is no > > 'check_idle' in idle.c. There is a 'check_idleness', however it shouldn't > > ever call 'idle_ui_ops->get_time_idle();' when xscreensaver is disabled > > because the idle UI ops are not set when xscreensaver is disabled. Unless I'm > > missing something. > > > > -Mark > > > Aren't we doing fallback to Gaim idle tracking when xscreensaver is > unavailable? > > Kevin Yes, and it's all handled in core code. If the idle UI ops are not set then we use Gaim idle. -Mark

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Tim Ringenbach <tim.ringenbach@co...> - 2005-12-02 02:40 Mark Doliner wrote: > Yes, and it's all handled in core code. If the idle UI ops are not set then > we use Gaim idle. I don't remember if I spoke up when this change was first made, but I think making this pref automatic was a mistake. 1. This wasn't an unbreakme pref, it was a legitmate case of two options I might want to choose between. Am I idle when I'm not using Gaim, or when I'm not using my computer? Anyone disagree with 1? 2. If we're going to slash a pref, we should do the Right Thing always, if possible. In this case, we should always use xss idle time, and not do idle at all if it's not available, or else always do gaim idle time, and not idle at all if it's not available. Instead, we decided that one thing is more right than another. 3. Since there's a fallback when xss isn't available, and that fallback isn't "not report idle", there still exists a preference. It's just a hidden, compile time only preference. I thought hidden preferences needed to superjustify themselves beyond that of normal preferences? I don't really care *that* much. Some people at the office use idle by Gaim usage and might complain to me though, and I don't think it makes sense. --Tim

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Luke Schierer <lschiere@us...> - 2005-12-02 03:55 Tim has more rationally and eloquently summerized many of the reactions to this particular slash that we've seen in the forum and in #gaim. I'd vote for the return of this preference, with the stipulation that "gaim idle" needs to be renamed. luke

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Ethan Blanton <eblanton@cs...> - 2005-12-02 14:18 Attachments: Message as HTML      Tim Ringenbach spake unto us the following wisdom: > 3. Since there's a fallback when xss isn't available, and that fallback= =20 > isn't "not report idle", there still exists a preference. It's just a=20 > hidden, compile time only preference. I thought hidden preferences=20 > needed to superjustify themselves beyond that of normal preferences? I don't think this is at all valid. If the decision is that computer idle time is superior to Gaim idle time, then the "hidden, compile time only preference" you speak of is more of a degraded functionality fall- back, which is perfectly reasonable. The fact that there may exist people who *want* this behavior might make it seem like a preference to them, but it isn't, and that's not the point. That said, I don't care either way whether we keep the preference or not. Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Mark Doliner <mark@ki...> - 2005-12-04 05:07 On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:40:15 -0600, Tim Ringenbach wrote > Mark Doliner wrote: > > Yes, and it's all handled in core code. If the idle UI ops are not set then > > we use Gaim idle. > > I don't remember if I spoke up when this change was first made, but > I think making this pref automatic was a mistake. > > 1. This wasn't an unbreakme pref, it was a legitmate case of two > options I might want to choose between. Am I idle when I'm not using > Gaim, or when I'm not using my computer? > > Anyone disagree with 1? > > 2. If we're going to slash a pref, we should do the Right Thing > always, if possible. In this case, we should always use xss idle > time, and not do idle at all if it's not available, or else always > do gaim idle time, and not idle at all if it's not available. > Instead, we decided that one thing is more right than another. > > 3. Since there's a fallback when xss isn't available, and that > fallback isn't "not report idle", there still exists a preference. > It's just a hidden, compile time only preference. I thought hidden > preferences needed to superjustify themselves beyond that of normal preferences? > > I don't really care *that* much. Some people at the office use idle > by Gaim usage and might complain to me though, and I don't think it > makes sense. > > --Tim How about we release the beta with this preference as-is, and we can see if a bunch of people complain about it? -Mark

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Tim Ringenbach <tim.ringenbach@co...> - 2005-12-04 17:23 Mark Doliner wrote: > How about we release the beta with this preference as-is, and we can see if a > bunch of people complain about it? Sure. --Tim

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Tim Ringenbach <omarvo@ho...> - 2005-12-04 17:34 Ethan Blanton wrote: > I don't think this is at all valid. If the decision is that computer > idle time is superior to Gaim idle time, then the "hidden, compile time > only preference" you speak of is more of a degraded functionality fall- > back, which is perfectly reasonable. > > The fact that there may exist people who *want* this behavior might make > it seem like a preference to them, but it isn't, and that's not the > point. So then, logically, it depends on whether one considers Gaim Idle Time a crippled fallback, or a legitimate feature that sits on equal ground with Computer Idle Time. I'm not sure on what bases we classify it as one or the other. I would say that, since more than one person at my office sets an away message that says something like "I haven't touched IM in while, message me at your own risk", that it must be an equally valid option. But my office isn't "most users". --Tim

Re: [Gaim-devel] Re: [Gaim-commits] CVS: gaim/src gtkidle.c,1.10,1.11 From: Luke Schierer <lschiere@us...> - 2005-12-04 19:18 On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:33:40AM -0600, Tim Ringenbach wrote: > So then, logically, it depends on whether one considers Gaim Idle Time a > crippled fallback, or a legitimate feature that sits on equal ground > with Computer Idle Time. > > I'm not sure on what bases we classify it as one or the other. I would > say that, since more than one person at my office sets an away message > that says something like "I haven't touched IM in while, message me at > your own risk", that it must be an equally valid option. But my office > isn't "most users". > > --Tim I have seen similar logic expressed in the forum. luke

6 messages have been excluded from this view by a project administrator.