From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-05-23 14:39:58
|
I make heavy use of a couple of NFS mounts so the repeated prompts to unmount them when I close ROX windows have been getting on my nerves. I've added a "Perform the same action in future for this mount point" button to the dialog and created a fork called th.git at repo.or.cz. It would be nice if there was a way to reenable the dialog if you change your mind later. A logical place would be the mount point's menu, but that would mean adding an extra menu item that would probably have to be hidden for other types of icon. Do you think iot's worth doing? -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Bernard J. <bju...@eu...> - 2009-05-25 17:51:59
|
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > I make heavy use of a couple of NFS mounts so the repeated prompts to > unmount them when I close ROX windows have been getting on my nerves. > I've added a "Perform the same action in future for this mount point" > button to the dialog and created a fork called th.git at repo.or.cz. Good idea. Useful for removable mounts too. Making the choices persistent would be more useful yet though. > It would be nice if there was a way to reenable the dialog if you change > your mind later. A logical place would be the mount point's menu, but > that would mean adding an extra menu item that would probably have to be > hidden for other types of icon. Do you think iot's worth doing? Or put a reenable button in the mount point property window? Cheers, Bernard. |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-05-25 18:49:04
|
On Mon, 25 May 2009 19:51:57 +0200 Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > > I make heavy use of a couple of NFS mounts so the repeated prompts to > > unmount them when I close ROX windows have been getting on my nerves. > > I've added a "Perform the same action in future for this mount point" > > button to the dialog and created a fork called th.git at repo.or.cz. > > Good idea. Useful for removable mounts too. I use DevTray for removable mounts and ROX doesn't treat them as mount points for some reason. One day I'd like to write a replacement which is dedicated just to removable media and gets ROX to do its mounting etc, over SOAP or something. > Making the choices persistent would be more useful yet though. Yes, as long as there's a way to reset them (as below). > > It would be nice if there was a way to reenable the dialog if you change > > your mind later. A logical place would be the mount point's menu, but > > that would mean adding an extra menu item that would probably have to be > > hidden for other types of icon. Do you think iot's worth doing? > > Or put a reenable button in the mount point property window? I was thinking as if it's a read-only dialog, but I suppose if you can change permissions in it there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-05-27 20:15:56
|
On Mon, 25 May 2009 19:48:58 +0100 Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2009 19:51:57 +0200 > Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > > > I make heavy use of a couple of NFS mounts so the repeated prompts to > > > unmount them when I close ROX windows have been getting on my nerves. > > > I've added a "Perform the same action in future for this mount point" > > > button to the dialog and created a fork called th.git at repo.or.cz. [Snip] > > Making the choices persistent would be more useful yet though. > > Yes, as long as there's a way to reset them (as below). [Snip] > > Or put a reenable button in the mount point property window? > > I was thinking as if it's a read-only dialog, but I suppose if you can > change permissions in it there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to OK, I've made both of these changes. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Bernard J. <bju...@eu...> - 2009-05-29 14:45:32
Attachments:
Some-tiny-changes.patch
|
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:15:10PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > OK, I've made both of these changes. Thanks. I've attached a patch with tiny improvements. Feel free to merge it anonymously with your patches. By the way, are we sure GPOINTER_TO_INT(NULL) always yields 0? It's assumed in filer_get_unmount_action(). Bernard. |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-05-29 18:50:42
|
On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:45:21 +0200 Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:15:10PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > > OK, I've made both of these changes. > > Thanks. I've attached a patch with tiny improvements. Feel free to merge it > anonymously with your patches. Thanks, I've done that. > By the way, are we sure GPOINTER_TO_INT(NULL) always yields 0? It's assumed in > filer_get_unmount_action(). I've changed the enum initialiser to use the former, just in case. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2009-05-30 18:37:36
|
2009/5/29 Tony Houghton <h...@re...>: > On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:45:21 +0200 > Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:15:10PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: >> > OK, I've made both of these changes. >> >> Thanks. I've attached a patch with tiny improvements. Feel free to merge it >> anonymously with your patches. > > Thanks, I've done that. > >> By the way, are we sure GPOINTER_TO_INT(NULL) always yields 0? It's assumed in >> filer_get_unmount_action(). > > I've changed the enum initialiser to use the former, just in case. Merged - thanks! -- Dr Thomas Leonard ROX desktop / Zero Install GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Bernard J. <bju...@eu...> - 2009-05-31 15:29:54
Attachments:
Other-change.patch
|
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:45:21 +0200 > Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > > By the way, are we sure GPOINTER_TO_INT(NULL) always yields 0? It's assumed in > > filer_get_unmount_action(). > > I've changed the enum initialiser to use the former, just in case. Mmmh, quite an unexpected fix! Alas, it doesn't work in all cases, unless the code to parse the value from file is fixed too. :-( See attachment. Cheers, Bernard. |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-05-31 16:34:04
|
On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:29:51 +0200 Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:45:21 +0200 > > Bernard Jungen <bju...@eu...> wrote: > > > By the way, are we sure GPOINTER_TO_INT(NULL) always yields 0? It's assumed in > > > filer_get_unmount_action(). > > > > I've changed the enum initialiser to use the former, just in case. > > Mmmh, quite an unexpected fix! Alas, it doesn't work in all cases, unless the > code to parse the value from file is fixed too. :-( See attachment. Ah, I think ISWYM: if we can't assume NULL casts to 0, we can't assume single digit values either. I'll leave it up to Thomas to apply this to the main branch. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |