From: Lothsahn <lot...@ya...> - 2006-11-06 03:55:57
|
Gaim Crashing Here's the latest RPT file. Gaim usually loses all of its icons, the screen goes white, and nothing renders but the window frames and tab frames, and then finally it crashes with an Illegal Operation. This is running on windows XP Professional, 32 bit edition. I've installed the debug version and can provide any further debugging as needed. This also happens on my Windows XP Pro-64 box at work. The home uses Yahoo/AIM and the work uses Jabber only. Lothsahn ------------------- Error occured on Sunday, February 19, 2006 at 15:08:23. K:\Gaim\gaim.exe caused an Access Violation at location 00000000 Reading from location 00000000. Registers: eax=00000001 ebx=01891d20 ecx=00000001 edx=011c2fd0 esi=00000001 edi=0022eab0 eip=00000000 esp=0022ea68 ebp=0022ea78 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz ac pe nc cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00010212 Call stack: 00000000 01799CC7 C:\Tcl\bin\tcl84.dll:01799CC7 Tcl_SetServiceMode 01894673 K:\Gaim\plugins\tcl.dll:01894673 gaim_init_plugin 01891D39 K:\Gaim\plugins\tcl.dll:01891D39 68C6D83C K:\Gaim\gaim.dll:68C6D83C gaim_plugin_load e:/gaim-build/gaim-1.5.0/src/plugin.c:364 68C6E747 K:\Gaim\gaim.dll:68C6E747 gaim_plugins_probe e:/gaim-build/gaim-1.5.0/src/plugin.c:946 68C6B7A4 K:\Gaim\gaim.dll:68C6B7A4 gaim_main e:/gaim-build/gaim-1.5.0/src/main.c:891 00401B19 K:\Gaim\gaim.exe:00401B19 WinMain e:/gaim-build/gaim-1.5.0/src/win_gaim.c:387 0040203A K:\Gaim\gaim.exe:0040203A WinMain e:/gaim-build/gaim-1.5.0/src/win_gaim.c:175 004011E7 K:\Gaim\gaim.exe:004011E7 00401238 K:\Gaim\gaim.exe:00401238 7C816D4F C:\WINDOWS\system32\kernel32.dll:7C816D4F RegisterWaitForInputIdle |
From: Bron G. <lis...@br...> - 2006-11-06 13:38:11
|
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:02:39PM -0500, Daniel Atallah wrote: > A couple things... you're using gaim 1.5.0. There are a large number > of fixes that have happened since that version was released - you > should be using 2.0.0beta4. As an observer, this reads to me that gaim has really gone off the rails sanity wise somewhere along the line. "don't run svn or you're an idiot" "we release every few weeks" and now "run our latest beta release rather than the one that our website calls stable" I quote the top of http://gaim.sourceforce.net/ Gaim 1.5.0 or indeed http://gaim.sourceforge.net/downloads.php Downloads The current Windows version is 1.5.0. The current *nix version is 1.5.0. I've stuck with gaim through all this development for 2.0 as a user, and even been tempted to get involved with development because there are some things I like about it - but the atitude which lead to spending a year without releasing is creating is really starting to shit me, and seeing users being told not to report bugs against the stable version when we've all but given up on a real release (when was beta3 again, March?) "Please grab beta 2 and let us know what you think. With any luck we won't need to make any major changes, and Gaim 2.0.0 final will be out before you can prove the theory of special relativity." ... that was January, and I think the only thing we've seen proven is the general theory of "the longer you go without a release the further off ever finishing you actually get", or something. </rant> I now return you to your regularly scheduled breath holding. Bron ( should not write to mailing lists when grumpy ) |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-11-06 14:51:30
|
Bron Gondwana spake unto us the following wisdom: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:02:39PM -0500, Daniel Atallah wrote: > > A couple things... you're using gaim 1.5.0. There are a large number > > of fixes that have happened since that version was released - you > > should be using 2.0.0beta4. >=20 > As an observer, this reads to me that gaim has really gone off the rails > sanity wise somewhere along the line. >=20 > "don't run svn or you're an idiot" >=20 > "we release every few weeks" It has never been "don't run svn or you're an idiot". I recommend reading the FAQ entry on why we discourage non-developers from using Gaim from non-release versions. > "run our latest beta release rather than the one that our website > calls stable" >=20 > I quote the top of http://gaim.sourceforce.net/ Gaim has never had a stable release, as such. Nowhere have we called 1.5.0 "stable". The gaim release process consists largely of making sure that no developers are *aware* of major, outstanding issues which really Need a Fix, and building a tarball. You might argue that this is suboptimal (and I agree!), but it's the way things are. I agree that downloads.php should be updated to reflect, at the least, 1.5.0 and 2.0.0b4. I'm not sure why it doesn't, and I haven't looked -- I'm not a "web programmer" anyway, and it would probably take me enough time to fix it that I'm better off working on something else. > I've stuck with gaim through all this development for 2.0 as a user,=20 > and even been tempted to get involved with development because there > are some things I like about it - but the atitude which lead to > spending a year without releasing is creating is really starting to=20 > shit me, and seeing users being told not to report bugs against the=20 > stable version when we've all but given up on a real release (when=20 > was beta3 again, March?) What attitude is that, which led to no release, pray tell? The lack of a 2.0.0 "final" release is not due to any "attitude", but to practical concerns. I think, when all is said and done, that you'll be happy we didn't release when the individual status boxes for each account were driving dozens of complaints a day, or when d-bus interactions caused spurious crashes, sometimes preventing even a single account from signing on, or when MSN couldn't sign on, or ... Beta 3 was March 28, Beta 3.1 was August 19, and Beta 4 was October 18th. For the volume of changes from b3->b4, I think that's actually a decent release schedule. Things would, of course, move along faster if more people were actively involved in development. "I don't want to help because development is too slow" is obviously a non-starter. Perhaps you are not aware that the majority of the *active* Gaim developers who remain =66rom about two years ago have, in that time, all had major life changes -- marriages, graduation from college, new jobs, cross-country moves, etc. Please, tell us why you think there has been no "real release". Beta 4 is certainly a "real release", and Beta 5 (which I hope to see in the next week or so) will be a real release. > "Please grab beta 2 and let us know what you think. With any luck we > won't need to make any major changes, and Gaim 2.0.0 final will be out > before you can prove the theory of special relativity." Special relativity is 50+ years old and counting... > ... that was January, and I think the only thing we've seen proven is the > general theory of "the longer you go without a release the further off > ever finishing you actually get", or something. "Or something" is certainly correct. 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 |
From: Sean E. <sea...@gm...> - 2006-11-07 01:13:49
|
On 11/6/06, Stephen Eilert <spe...@gm...> wrote: > I can't tell if you are addressing "me" directly. Just as a reminder > to everyone, I did not start this subject. I picked it from another > message and expanded the topic somewhat. Oh, definitely not. That's the plural "you." > I had no intention to bug the developers about it and I don't think > the original poster did, either. In any case, don't you think you now > have a nice "essay" to post on Planet Gaim if people start > complaining? :) *start* complaining? Where have you been? ;) -s. |
From: Ka-Hing C. <ga...@hx...> - 2006-11-08 03:45:05
|
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 14:11 +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > I wrote a patch to Gaim for a feature that really bugged me (unable > to change the font for more than one message within a conversation - > if you ever changed the font it would revert to the default for > the next message) and I ran into the "we don't like configuration > options" problem and got it rejected. I've been a bit more wary > of spending time working on stuff that I don't know is wanted since! Works here. -khc |
From: Etan R. <de...@ed...> - 2006-11-06 14:56:13
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:02:39PM -0500, Daniel Atallah wrote: >> A couple things... you're using gaim 1.5.0. There are a large number >> of fixes that have happened since that version was released - you >> should be using 2.0.0beta4. > > As an observer, this reads to me that gaim has really gone off the rails > sanity wise somewhere along the line. > > "don't run svn or you're an idiot" > > "we release every few weeks" > > and now > > "run our latest beta release rather than the one that our website > calls stable" > > I quote the top of http://gaim.sourceforce.net/ <snip the quote from the website> What exactly is wrong with telling people that if they have bugs with the latest "stable" release (which, unless I missed it, is a word we don't use anywhere major) that they should try the latest beta before reporting it? What is wrong with telling people that bugs reported against a very old version are not likely to be given much precedence considering the fact that a very large portion of the gaim code base has changed since that release? (I'm not going to bother commenting on the first two quotes since they aren't relevant.) > I've stuck with gaim through all this development for 2.0 as a user, > and even been tempted to get involved with development because there > are some things I like about it - but the atitude which lead to > spending a year without releasing is creating is really starting to > shit me, and seeing users being told not to report bugs against the > stable version when we've all but given up on a real release (when > was beta3 again, March?) The "attitude" which has led to a year without releasing is one of not wanting to release a version with known bugs/issues. Any other attitude is what leads to major "fix all our bugs" patches that come within a week or so of a release of commercial software. No one likes that, least of all the users who have to deal with broken software for a week. Plus, it makes the developers look bad (something which magically seems not to matter in the commercial software world, but certainly does in the open source world). <snip a section Ethan responded well to> > </rant> > > > I now return you to your regularly scheduled breath holding. > > Bron ( should not write to mailing lists when grumpy ) Maybe you should just not post rather than tagging it 'grumpy' at the end. It would certainly have saved us all a lot of time. (Constructive comments are always welcome, grumpy griping not so much.) -Etan |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-11-07 02:47:43
|
Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom: > On 11/6/06, Stephen Eilert <spe...@gm...> wrote: > > I can't tell if you are addressing "me" directly. Just as a reminder > > to everyone, I did not start this subject. I picked it from another > > message and expanded the topic somewhat. >=20 > Oh, definitely not. That's the plural "you." Curse the loss of thou. 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 |
From: Bron G. <br...@fa...> - 2006-11-08 05:27:03
|
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Ka-Hing Cheung wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 14:11 +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > I wrote a patch to Gaim for a feature that really bugged me (unable > > to change the font for more than one message within a conversation - > > if you ever changed the font it would revert to the default for > > the next message) and I ran into the "we don't like configuration > > options" problem and got it rejected. I've been a bit more wary > > of spending time working on stuff that I don't know is wanted since! > > Works here. Yeah, it got made default somewhere along the line. This was pre-1.5 when it didn't do that. I think the behaviour changed about the same time that icons were added to allow switching fonts to be done more easily than digging down into a menu somewhere. But it's probably a fair call that I should get involved in gaim development if I want to make comments about the process. I'll probably be setting up a jabber server for a couple of hundred thousand people at some point soon, and I'll care a lot more about being able to recommend a good client then (me, I do build from svn and suffer the occasional problem - I can always revert the svn revision if I want, and it's only for personal use) Bron. |
From: Stephen E. <spe...@gm...> - 2006-11-06 17:08:44
|
On 11/6/06, Etan Reisner <de...@ed...> wrote: > > (I'm not going to bother commenting on the first two quotes since they > aren't relevant.) > > > I've stuck with gaim through all this development for 2.0 as a user, > > and even been tempted to get involved with development because there > > are some things I like about it - but the atitude which lead to > > spending a year without releasing is creating is really starting to > > shit me, and seeing users being told not to report bugs against the > > stable version when we've all but given up on a real release (when > > was beta3 again, March?) > > The "attitude" which has led to a year without releasing is one of not > wanting to release a version with known bugs/issues. Any other attitude > is what leads to major "fix all our bugs" patches that come within a > week or so of a release of commercial software. No one likes that, least > of all the users who have to deal with broken software for a week. Plus, > it makes the developers look bad (something which magically seems not > to matter in the commercial software world, but certainly does in the > open source world). I think only this part is of real importance. "Betas" are not a "release" in my book, a beta is something you do before release, to catch bugs that escaped testing, so there is this perception that "beta" software is buggy or not to be run by ordinary people, for business usage, etc. In any case, there are few (as in, I don't know about any) Linux distributions that package any Gaim beta, so the standard everywhere is Gaim 1.5. I think the ones that do, do not call themselves "stable". I've noticed that it is getting easier to compile Gaim from source, but this is not to be expected from users (and the RPM packages aren't adequate for some distros). How different is this from having a Gaim 2.0, Gaim 2.1, Gaim 2.2, Gaim 2.3.1.4.5.6.7-SP2? I think it is the same thing, but it seems people understand it differently. Anyway, since we are talking about this subject, what features/bugs currently prevent Gaim 2.0 Beta 5 from being called just "Gaim 2.0"? Stephen |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2006-11-07 03:48:46
|
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:47:50PM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: > Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom: > > On 11/6/06, Stephen Eilert <spe...@gm...> wrote: > > > I can't tell if you are addressing "me" directly. Just as a reminder > > > to everyone, I did not start this subject. I picked it from another > > > message and expanded the topic somewhat. > > > > Oh, definitely not. That's the plural "you." > > Curse the loss of thou. > > Ethan That would have been the difference between the spanish "tu" and "usted" not the difference between "usted" and "ustedes" luke |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-11-07 04:02:54
|
Luke Schierer spake unto us the following wisdom: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:47:50PM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: > > Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom: > > > Oh, definitely not. That's the plural "you." > >=20 > > Curse the loss of thou. >=20 > That would have been the difference between the spanish "tu" and "usted" > not the difference between "usted" and "ustedes"=20 No; thou is singular, you is plural. Over the years, the second person singular was lost. You are correct that there was a period of time when the second person plural was used as an honorific, but there was also a period of history where the second person plural applied to a singular subject was derogatory. 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 |
From: Bron G. <lis...@br...> - 2006-12-17 14:19:49
|
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:26:46PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > But it's probably a fair call that I should get involved in gaim > development if I want to make comments about the process. I'll probably > be setting up a jabber server for a couple of hundred thousand people > at some point soon, and I'll care a lot more about being able to > recommend a good client then (me, I do build from svn and suffer the > occasional problem - I can always revert the svn revision if I want, and > it's only for personal use) So I felt guilty after this, and besides someone emailed me and asked if I had a patch to what also happened to be my favourite "bug" caused by the font persisting that was partly my fault in the first place! I wrote this: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1617375&group_id=235&atid=100235 No preferences this time, and it works fine in my testing. I can see there are other issues that probably want to be solved (my testing did find the most common other paste bug, which is fragments of <font in the final output), but that would be a more serious rewrite to fix! Hopefully I can offer other more constructive stuff in future. I'm certainly more of an "expert" in GtkText* than I was a few weeks ago. Regards, Bron. ( who got my wife off her individual Windows protocol clients and on to Gaim the other day. Next step weaning from Windows! ) |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2006-11-06 17:46:33
|
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 02:08:36PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote: > On 11/6/06, Etan Reisner <de...@ed...> wrote: > > > > > (I'm not going to bother commenting on the first two quotes since they > > aren't relevant.) > > > > > I've stuck with gaim through all this development for 2.0 as a user, > > > and even been tempted to get involved with development because there > > > are some things I like about it - but the atitude which lead to > > > spending a year without releasing is creating is really starting to > > > shit me, and seeing users being told not to report bugs against the > > > stable version when we've all but given up on a real release (when > > > was beta3 again, March?) > > > > The "attitude" which has led to a year without releasing is one of not > > wanting to release a version with known bugs/issues. Any other attitude > > is what leads to major "fix all our bugs" patches that come within a > > week or so of a release of commercial software. No one likes that, least > > of all the users who have to deal with broken software for a week. Plus, > > it makes the developers look bad (something which magically seems not > > to matter in the commercial software world, but certainly does in the > > open source world). > > I think only this part is of real importance. "Betas" are not a > "release" in my book, a beta is something you do before release, to > catch bugs that escaped testing, so there is this perception that > "beta" software is buggy or not to be run by ordinary people, for > business usage, etc. > > In any case, there are few (as in, I don't know about any) Linux > distributions that package any Gaim beta, so the standard everywhere > is Gaim 1.5. I think the ones that do, do not call themselves > "stable". I've noticed that it is getting easier to compile Gaim from > source, but this is not to be expected from users (and the RPM > packages aren't adequate for some distros). Redhat, fedora, debian and ubuntu are all looking at releasing with different packages of 2.0.0 beta*. This is not significantly different from the 0.11pre* releases. luke > > How different is this from having a Gaim 2.0, Gaim 2.1, Gaim 2.2, Gaim > 2.3.1.4.5.6.7-SP2? I think it is the same thing, but it seems people > understand it differently. > correct. people understand it more accurately. That is, they would have a false expectation of stability and consistency across the last 5 releases (counting beta3.1 as a release) had we version numbered them as such. You appear to be arguing for NEVER releasing ANY version of gaim not marked "beta" ever again. As I suspect this is not your intent, I would suggest you revisit gaim's past history of stability and its past history of deciding what is release-worthy. > > Anyway, since we are talking about this subject, what features/bugs > currently prevent Gaim 2.0 Beta 5 from being called just "Gaim 2.0"? If beta5 goes well, it will likely be the last. Of course, that would have been true of beta4 also, but it did not go well. luke > > > Stephen > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Gaim-devel mailing list > Gai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel > |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-12-21 22:05:14
|
Bron Gondwana spake unto us the following wisdom: > I wrote this: >=20 > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D1617375&grou= p_id=3D235&atid=3D100235 >=20 > No preferences this time, and it works fine in my testing. I can see > there are other issues that probably want to be solved (my testing did > find the most common other paste bug, which is fragments of <font in > the final output), but that would be a more serious rewrite to fix! This looks like a good thing to fix, and this patch looks effective, but I think it would be nicer to truly snapshot the text state (rather than capturing a hardcoded set of properties). It looks to me like gtk_text_iter_get_tags can do this, using the iter created immediately prior to inserting the text; you can then insert the text and restore any tags whose value have changed across the insert. This also has the benefit of tracking the state at the point where the text was inserted, rather than the state of the GtkIMHtml editing flags, which may mean something slightly different (I'm not sure, honestly). How does that strike you? 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 |
From: Bron G. <lis...@br...> - 2006-12-22 05:07:06
|
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 05:04:47PM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: > Bron Gondwana spake unto us the following wisdom: > > I wrote this: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1617375&group_id=235&atid=100235 > > > > No preferences this time, and it works fine in my testing. I can see > > there are other issues that probably want to be solved (my testing did > > find the most common other paste bug, which is fragments of <font in > > the final output), but that would be a more serious rewrite to fix! > > This looks like a good thing to fix, and this patch looks effective, > but I think it would be nicer to truly snapshot the text state (rather > than capturing a hardcoded set of properties). It looks to me like > gtk_text_iter_get_tags can do this, using the iter created immediately > prior to inserting the text; you can then insert the text and restore > any tags whose value have changed across the insert. This also has > the benefit of tracking the state at the point where the text was > inserted, rather than the state of the GtkIMHtml editing flags, which > may mean something slightly different (I'm not sure, honestly). > > How does that strike you? It sounds pretty good, though if you look at: gtk_imhtml_insert_html_at_iter You'll see that those very same properties are special cased many times in there. I'd actually much prefer to be using the same infrastructure that GtkIMHtmlFontDetail uses, and make all changes push and pull from that stack, but that's a significantly larger refactor that I can't test the consequences of quite so easily, and I wouldn't want to push it for a 2.0 release (see my earlier "flames" about the ever widening scope and pushed-offedness of the next release!) I guess the "intent" is: "before a paste, capture the current formatting state" "perform the paste" "find the new formatting state" "compare each item of the state and if it's different, toggle it back in such a way that all user interface elements are made consistent" The downsize of this patch is that any change in what we consider as tracked formatting values needs a change to this piece of code - but I don't see that as a huge problem because there are so many other places that only consider these fields. The "what if it's in a hyperlink" question is something much more complex and nastier. Many of the paste related bugs on SF are of the form: "I pasted a URL with a hyperlink" "I edited the URL text" "I sent it and the other end got the unedited URL" We don't have any good way (at the moment) to edit a hyperlink once it's created. Theoretically I could see an interface where you right click inside a URL and get an "Edit Hyperlink" option in the dropdown menu which pops up a dialog to change the contents of the link. Possibly even detect an attempt to edit the text of a hyperlink and pop up that dialog if you wanted to be clever about it. That would mean that you _couldn't_ paste inside a hyperlink's text because that region would be marked uneditable. Regards, Bron. |
From: Stephen E. <spe...@gm...> - 2006-11-06 18:40:11
|
On 11/6/06, Luke Schierer <lsc...@us...> wrote: > > Redhat, fedora, debian and ubuntu are all looking at releasing with > different packages of 2.0.0 beta*. This is not significantly different > from the 0.11pre* releases. > And that could be a mess. Not for me, because I'm not the only one getting the bug reports, but I don't think it will be pleasant if it happens. > luke > > > > > How different is this from having a Gaim 2.0, Gaim 2.1, Gaim 2.2, Gaim > > 2.3.1.4.5.6.7-SP2? I think it is the same thing, but it seems people > > understand it differently. > > > correct. people understand it more accurately. That is, they would > have a false expectation of stability and consistency across the last 5 > releases (counting beta3.1 as a release) had we version numbered them as > such. You appear to be arguing for NEVER releasing ANY version of gaim > not marked "beta" ever again. As I suspect this is not your intent, I > would suggest you revisit gaim's past history of stability and its past > history of deciding what is release-worthy. That's not what I meant. However, I do believe that "Beta" is getting overdone. Generally, betas are made for a subset of users, preferably those willing/able to submit bug reports. The problem here is saying that all users should use the beta versions. In that case, it should be a release. I believe that this is what the original poster meant, but I might be wrong. Having as many beta versions as required shouldn't be an issue. Having said that, Gaim could in a version named 0.0.1pre-alpha for all I care. It doesn't bother me much, but I suspect it bothers/confuses users. > > > > > Anyway, since we are talking about this subject, what features/bugs > > currently prevent Gaim 2.0 Beta 5 from being called just "Gaim 2.0"? > > If beta5 goes well, it will likely be the last. Of course, that would have > been true of beta4 also, but it did not go well. And so on. Being a developer myself, I know the drill :) Stephen |
From: Richard L. <rl...@wi...> - 2006-12-21 23:47:08
|
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 17:04 -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: > This also has > the benefit of tracking the state at the point where the text was > inserted, rather than the state of the GtkIMHtml editing flags, which > may mean something slightly different (I'm not sure, honestly). >=20 > How does that strike you? I'm not sure that there will be any tags that aren't representing GtkIMHtml flags, except maybe hyperlinks. The two concerns I have with your approach are: 1) It might cause the formatting toolbar buttons to get out-of-sync with the actual formatting. 2) If the buffer contained a link and you pasted something, typing again shouldn't be tagged as part of the original link. I'm not sure if either of those things would happen, but those would be things to test if changing the approach. Richard |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-12-22 00:00:54
|
Richard Laager spake unto us the following wisdom: > I'm not sure that there will be any tags that aren't representing > GtkIMHtml flags, except maybe hyperlinks. The two concerns I have with > your approach are: 1) It might cause the formatting toolbar buttons to > get out-of-sync with the actual formatting. 2) If the buffer contained a > link and you pasted something, typing again shouldn't be tagged as part > of the original link. I don't see the first point, and I disagree on the second. Since we're resetting the formatting after the paste, anyway, the formatting toolbar buttons shouldn't be out of sync, right? If you paste in a link, the entire paste should be part of the link, right? What else would make sense? In any case, special-casing a single (or a couple of) tag(s) strikes me as a far superior solution to special-casing *every possible* tag. 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 |
From: Richard L. <rl...@wi...> - 2006-12-22 00:09:47
|
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 19:00 -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: > Since we're resetting the formatting after the paste, anyway, the > formatting toolbar buttons shouldn't be out of sync, right? If I understood your suggestion properly, you're advocating restoring tags directly, not manipulating the formatting bits. In that case, it's quite possible that the buttons will be out of sync, as you're bypassing the code that updates them when the format is updated. I'm not sure if that's the case or not. > If you paste in a link, the entire paste should be part of the link, > right? What else would make sense? No, I'm talking about this: 1. Insert a link. 2. Paste some text. 3. Type some text. In that case, only the content from #1 should be linked. If we restore tags, #3 would end up being linked, if hyperlinks are represented as tags (which I think they are). > In any case, special-casing a single (or a couple of) tag(s) strikes > me as a far superior solution to special-casing *every possible* tag. In general, I'd agree with this, but in this case, I'm not sure it's the right approach. I'm not sure it's the wrong approach either, though. I'd have to do some looking and/or implementing-and-testing to see. Richard |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2006-11-06 18:49:54
|
Stephen Eilert spake unto us the following wisdom: > That's not what I meant. However, I do believe that "Beta" is getting > overdone. Generally, betas are made for a subset of users, preferably > those willing/able to submit bug reports. The problem here is saying > that all users should use the beta versions. In that case, it should > be a release. I believe that this is what the original poster meant, > but I might be wrong. Having as many beta versions as required > shouldn't be an issue. Yeah ... just like gmail, and Froogle. Those aren't meant for end users at all. 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 |
From: Stephen E. <spe...@gm...> - 2006-11-06 19:00:15
|
On 11/6/06, Ethan Blanton <ebl...@cs...> wrote: > Stephen Eilert spake unto us the following wisdom: > > That's not what I meant. However, I do believe that "Beta" is getting > > overdone. Generally, betas are made for a subset of users, preferably > > those willing/able to submit bug reports. The problem here is saying > > that all users should use the beta versions. In that case, it should > > be a release. I believe that this is what the original poster meant, > > but I might be wrong. Having as many beta versions as required > > shouldn't be an issue. > > Yeah ... just like gmail, and Froogle. Those aren't meant for end > users at all. Good point. I rest my case :) Stephen |
From: Kevin M S. <ke...@si...> - 2006-11-06 20:19:13
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Ethan Blanton wrote: > Greg Hudson spake unto us the following wisdom: >> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:35 -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote: >> [in response to someone else writing:] >>>> Since gaim 1.5.0 is not maintained anymore maybe it should be marked= >>> Why do you say it is no longer maintained? As it is our current 1.x >>> release, it will of course receive security and other critical fixes >>> as we become aware of them. >> I believe Gaim 1.5.0 still crashes when trying to connect to MSN >> accounts, right? I don't see any evidence of a 1.5 release since that= >> problem developed. >=20 > You may be right; if you are, know that we worked with those who > package Gaim (there is a mailing list just for this, even) to > communicate which patches from svn should be applied (the 1.5.0 branch > continues on past 1.5.0 release) to obtain a stable build. Virtually > all users using 1.5.0 are using a distribution-provided package, and > so we get approximately zero support requests regarding this. >=20 >> I'm not trying to berate the Gaim team here; it's the work of voluntee= rs >> and it's by and large a great piece of software. This is intended >> constructively--either as a reminder that there is a critical bug in >> 1.5.0 that ought to be addressed, or feedback suggesting that people b= e >> directed at 2.0b4 over 1.5 given the number of known critical bugs in >> each. >=20 > Perhaps we should release a 1.5.1 with those changes in an official > tarball, this is a good point. We haven't considered it a big > priority because, as I said, basically everyone using 1.5.x is doing > so through their distribution. Most distributions are even moving to > 2.0 betas, these days. >=20 After thinking about it for a while, I think that releasing 1.5.1 with these fixes is a good idea. There are a number of fixes that went into beta 3.1 and it seems like any of those that applied to 1.5.x as well, might be justified. Some people are wary of software labeled as beta and feel like we're forcing them to test software they just want to work. A bug that causes crashes on Unixes and Windows completely disallowing access to an entire supported protocol seems like it warrants a service release. It might be worthing seeing what patches the mystical "1.5.1cvs" builds from various distros included and package them as well if they're not idiotic... If we can get 2.0.0 within a couple weeks, then the point is moot, most likely, but if it could be another month or two, a 1.5.1 release with some major fixes might be reasonable, unless we want to try to make the case that 2.0.0 beta 4 is as stable as 1.5.x. But that's just going to invite more people to express concern about the fact it hasn't been "released" yet. What I really don't understand is the people who think we're dead. I guess they're people who don't follow the web site, or #gaim, or gaim-devel, or SVN commits. Kevin |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@us...> - 2006-11-06 23:05:47
|
I tend to agree that a 1.5.1 release would likely be warrented. I will attempt to devote some time this week to see if there are patches in the 1.5.1cvs releases that are not in that branch already (most are). I would need someone else to backport the relevent fixes from 2.0.0 beta3.1 however. If we get those backported, I can tag svn, and follow Mark's release process for creating a tarball. luke |
From: Stephen E. <spe...@gm...> - 2006-11-07 01:11:02
|
On 11/6/06, Sean Egan <sea...@gm...> wrote: > Possible excuses why 2.0.0 is still in "beta": > > - Having been employed at Google, I've really taken to being beta all the time I like this "excuse" the most :D > Every one of us developers wants to release 2.0.0 "final" as soon as > possible, and it's entirely me who's insisting on betas. I say this so > that, if you disagree, you can yell at me directly and leave the other > poor developers alone. In the past, beta1 would probably have been > 2.0.0, and then on from there. We would have been locked into an API > that has seen a bunch of improvements , wihch would have hurt us (that, > or we'd be up to 5.0.0 now). I don't know when we'll release 2.0.0 (although > apparently Wikipedia can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaim#Gaim_2), > but I hope it'll be worth the wait. I can't tell if you are addressing "me" directly. Just as a reminder to everyone, I did not start this subject. I picked it from another message and expanded the topic somewhat. > > In the meantime, realize what you (as someone subscribed to > gaim-devel) already know: The 2.0.0beta releases are really stable, > and perfectly usable for most end users. The fact that they're labeled > beta perhaps provides a slight perception problem for people not on > gaim-devel, but that's fine. The label indicates it's not perfect, and > it's not. When 2.0.0 is "final," as people are saying, it should > indicate that we consider it "perfect" (pending upcoming incompatible > protocol changes). And this perception to people outside Gaim-devel is what motivated my e-mail. As long as people understand that Gaim betas are stable and it gets packaged in major Linux distributions(the ones that currently package Gaim 1.5), I have no problems with it and I believe hardly anyone else does. I had no intention to bug the developers about it and I don't think the original poster did, either. In any case, don't you think you now have a nice "essay" to post on Planet Gaim if people start complaining? :) -- Stephen "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." --James Bovard |
From: Torrey M. <Torrey.McMahon@Sun.COM> - 2006-11-07 05:00:55
|
Sean Egan wrote: > To call software "stable" implies that it works, always, consistently, > forever and ever. Due to the nature of Gaim, this is not possible. and then later .. > Due to inherent externalities, Gaim can never be stable. Ever (unless, > by miracle, every service we support decide to stablize and publish > their protocols). I don't think anyone is asking for a specific version of Gaim to work for now and all time and all protocols. Those in the know are quite aware that the protocols change and that things are fixed as quickly as possible. It is the nature of this particular beast. However, I have seen people asking for stability around the APIs that Gaim provides. The OTR plugin has broke with almost every beta. Sure someone might be able to get a patch out but many can't and some plugin writers/providers have said they're just going to wait for 2.0 to come out instead of wrestling with each beta. Each time I've built a beta on Solaris - Please no flames about my choice of OS - I've had a long, fun road trying to track down where everything has changed, files have moved to, the extra packages I need all of a sudden, and the list goes on. Again, sure I can deal with this but can everyone? Do they want too? After 2.0 is released perhaps it would be a good time to discuss Gaim's release model and semantics around words like "stable". At the very least it would probably end a lot of the confusion and put some of these discussions to rest. That all said if you really think you're in a "Pure-Unadulterated-ESR's-Catherdral-And-The-Bazaar, Every-User-Is-A-Developer, Given-Enough-Eyeballs-All-Bugs-Are-Shallow, world" I think you're not counting your user base correctly. Personally, I think ESR's arguments breaks down when you get past the developer community and start to have a pure user population but that's just my opinion.....and not necessarily that of my employer either so please no flames about that either. ;) |