[Sugar-devel] [DESIGN] Name object on Activity exit revisited

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Walter


Again I am being careless in writing. My apologies.

The purpose in giving the user the option to use the alt key with a 
default of always starting new is that the current scheme requires 
additional instruction
to sugar users to explain that they must look at the palette to decide 
which activity to launch. I strongly preferred the original design in 
which a click on the icon in the Home View started the activity new and 
a click on the icon in the Journal resumed that instance. If all Journal 
objects have unique names supplied by the user, it will be very easy for 
the user to select an activity instance to launch.

I appreciate that some Sugar users prefer the current default behavior. 
I think this should be implemented with a configuration option to make the
default behavior as it is now with the alt button pressed or to make 
behave as it does now.

Tony

On 06/02/2016 07:50 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Silva 
> <sebastian at fuentelibre.org <mailto:sebastian at fuentelibre.org>> wrote:
>
>     Not every time you do an activity are you doing work worth
>     committing. For instance I work with a lot of terminals, that I
>     reuse and there's no point in committing terminal sessions.
>
>     So imho Sugar should not force you to commit if you don't want to.
>
>
> We had long ago talked about letting some activities opt out. 
> Regardless, adding the commit message back with an opt-out button is 
> fine with me, but I still don't understand what problem we are 
> solving. If I understand it, Tony also wants to circumvent the 
> relaunch last instance by default as well. In the case of your 
> Terminal example, it would mean you'd have Terminal instances in your 
> Journal for each time you used the Terminal unless you too the time to 
> go to the Journal and search for a previous instance. I think that 
> makes the spam problem worse, not better.
>
> -walter
>
>
>     El 02/06/16 a las 12:36, Walter Bender escribió:
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Sebastian Silva
>>     <sebastian at fuentelibre.org <mailto:sebastian at fuentelibre.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         El 02/06/16 a las 11:37, Walter Bender escribió:
>>
>>         >
>>         > I don't recall there ever being a 'Don't Save" dialog. I do
>>         recall the
>>         > dialog to enter a "commit message" upon exit. I'm all for
>>         the latter!!!
>>
>>         Yes the proposal is a 'commit message' with a 'don't commit'
>>         option. I
>>         was never a fan of the former but having the option would
>>         change my mind.
>>
>>         Can you help point Utkarsh to when this was removed? Thanks!
>>
>>
>>     It was sometime before 0.96 because it was in that release I
>>     added the "Write to Journal Anytime" feature.
>>
>>     But I am confused as to what problem we are solving here.
>>
>>     I think we should require commit messages in Sugar the same way
>>     we require them in our own work. But that said, the decision to
>>     commit is made numerous times through out the lifecycle of an
>>     activity, not just at closing. For example, Turtle, Write, and
>>     many others will write whenever the activity goes to the
>>     background. And Turtle saves whenever you run code. So how does a
>>     "don't commit" option work exactly?
>>
>>     -walter
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Walter Bender
>>     Sugar Labs
>>     http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20160603/b787698b/attachment.html>