[Bugs] #2087 UNSP: [Enhancement] Protected Activities

Sugar Labs Bugs bugtracker-noreply at sugarlabs.org
Wed Aug 4 11:36:04 EDT 2010

#2087: [Enhancement] Protected Activities
    Reporter:  tch                        |          Owner:  tch                        
        Type:  enhancement                |         Status:  new                        
    Priority:  Unspecified by Maintainer  |      Milestone:  Unspecified by Release Team
   Component:  sugar                      |        Version:  Unspecified                
    Severity:  Unspecified                |       Keywords:  sugar-love r! dextrose     
Distribution:  Unspecified                |   Status_field:  Unconfirmed                
Changes (by tomeu):

  * keywords:  sugar-love r? dextrose => sugar-love r! dextrose


 Replying to [comment:6 tch]:
 > Replying to [comment:5 tomeu]:
 > > Three questions:
 > >
 > > - have you considered using GConf so deployments can change the
 default without patching rpms? May be good to avoid one more configuration
 > >
 > I see, I did use gconf in the first patch version, just though it would
 be confusing to have some activities list configurations in text files and
 others in gconf. Plus, I think I have seen some discussions about the
 future of gconf. That's why I used a text file.

 Ok, but having to spin a patched rpm is some orders of magnitude less
 convenient than dropping a file in /etc/gconf. Also, GConf is being
 replaced with dconf which is quite similar in this respect, we'll migrate
 all the settings from gconf when the time comes.

 > > - do we want to hide the menu option or to grey it out like we do when
 we cannot write to the dir?
 > >
 > Honestly, I don't think it makes any difference. If theres some good
 argument I don't know, please let me know and I'll change it.

 This should have been asked to the design team before you started to code.

 > > - don't we want two separate error messages when we fail to read
 either the favorite defaults or the protected activities?
 > >
 > > s/protects_activity/is_activity_protected
 > >
 > Just did not like the idea of having 2 try blocks (one after another)
 doing "almost" the same thing, but surely I can change that if you don't
 agree. :)

 Good error reporting trumps code succintness almost always.

Ticket URL: <http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/2087#comment:8>
Sugar Labs <http://sugarlabs.org/>
Sugar Labs bug tracking system

More information about the Bugs mailing list