[Sugar-devel] [SPAM?]: Re: [PATCH sugar v2] Add Control Panel for proxy settings

[Simon Schampijer]

Hi Gary,

thanks for the feedback!

On 01/29/2012 05:46 PM, Gary Martin wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 28 Jan 2012, at 14:20, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>  wrote:
>
>> On 01/28/2012 01:44 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2012 07:15 PM, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>>>> On 01/24/2012 09:56 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
>>>>> From: Aleksey Lim<alsroot at activitycentral.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both individual users and deployments need to be able to set a proxy for
>>>>> Sugar and activities to use. While we'd like the system to work that all
>>>>> out automatically (e.g. using WPAD [1]), this often isn't possible.
>>>>> Common
>>>>> reasons include legacy ("inherited") setups and network uplinks simply
>>>>> being
>>>>> out of control of the user respectively deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> For consistency between Sugar and Gnome (and to the benefit of
>>>>> existing users
>>>>> who currently switch to Gnome to change proxy settings), the layout of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Gnome proxy settings dialog has been mirrored as much as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Proxy_Autodiscovery_Protocol
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anish Mangal<anish at sugarlabs.org>
>>>>> [replaced description; merged fix-up patches from Aleksey; style fixes;
>>>>> added WPAD hint; fixed needs_restart defaults bug]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Silbe<silbe at activitycentral.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> When applying the patch me and Manuel get: "fatal: corrupt patch at line
>>>> 414"
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>>
>>> I removed the icon which caused the bug and now the patch does apply.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>
>> I still think merging the proxy option inside the network section of the Control Panel makes more sense than having a separate section. Here is how the network section looks in GNOME3 [1][2][3].
>>
>> And here is a short cody-mockup that shows how it could look like in Sugar [4][5] (I am running the XO settings).
>>
>> If we re-arrange the text of the wireless sub-section and collaboration sub-section a bit I think we can even get away with scrolling there.
>
> Yes, it's better to try and keep these network related settings in the one CP module. I'm also fine with it triggering scrolling when needed as these settings are already very technical/admin in nature. Re your mockup, think the new proxy section should go a the bottom of the list, below the existing collaboration server entry.

Yes, sounds good to put the proxy setting on the bottom. Will code the 
section up today and send new mockups.

Regards,
    Simon