4.6.0

[Jannis Pohlmann]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:12:20 -0800
"Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:02:24 +0000 Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> 
> > KISS anyone, Keep It Simple Stupid? What's wrong with having a
> > boolean? And why so much code for something simple?
> 
> This *is* simple.  In a way.  It keeps the majority of the hack
> *outside* xfsettingsd.  (See below for the rest.)
> 
> > Beside, adding another LastCustomDPI and putting the logic in the
> > GUI kinda defeats the idea of changing settings from xfconf-query,
> > what if the user fiddle with the values from the command line? A
> > boolean would make sense in that case IMHO.
> 
> Not really.  If they use xfconf-query with this new patch, they get
> the *proper* behavior.  Setting /Xft/DPI to -1 tells it to
> auto-calculate, and setting it to anything else forces the value,
> exactly as it should. The UseCustomDPI boolean broke this *correct*
> behavior.
> 
> > Sorry, but I am at lost now, I do like when things are kept
> > simple... I kinda liked my initial 15 line patch and yes, if the
> > user uncheck the toggle, the previous value was lost, but is that
> > so much of a big deal that requires a 15K patch?
> 
> Yeah, personally I don't see the need for this extra stuff either.  If
> we were to do it my way, we'd just implement it exactly this way,
> except leave out the LastCustomDPI stuff entirely and not change the
> dialog *at all*.  The hack would be contained to some simple
> auto-calculation code in xfsettingsd that only gets activated
> if /Xft/DPI is set to -1.
> 
> But others seem convinced that it's friendlier to the user to make the
> GUI remember your last setting (how often and WHY would you want to
> toggle the custom thing on and off anyway?!), and to try to present
> the current value the first time you enable it (I see this as useful,
> but not entirely necessary).
> 
> Personally I'd rather keep code changes to a minimum during an RC
> cycle (only critical release-blocker fixes, and only those that can be
> done with relatively low risk, and no fixes at all to non-critical
> bugs unless they are demonstrably trivial), but it seems like no one
> else really cares about that.

*sigh*

I'll leave it to you guys. I've made several patches which implement
this thing several ways. Sure, they add code, but they reduce
confusion and they work very well. People will play with the DPI
settings, I'm pretty sure of that, so it's better if its working as
expected.

Now it's up to you to commit one of all the patches that were suggested
by Olivier and me. I'm out of this.

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/attachments/20090220/e89fe24e/attachment.pgp>