Yeah it's something that needs to be tried out. You should give a try to the latest sugar at some point :) With your workflow I suspect you would probably switch between the two X sessions (Eric and Sugar) using ctrl-alt-number. I tend to close sugar instead but that's probably because I'm hacking sugar itself.<span></span><div>
<div><div><br>On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, James Simmons wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">It's hard for me to imagine how that would work. There is no specific reason I have to want Sugar in a window. I tend to do my development with Eric, then launch my Activity in the Sugar window to how the effect of my changes. Then I quit out of the Activity, go back to Eric, and so on. It's going back and forth between coding and testing that I'm concerned about. I'm not too concerned about screen resolutions most of the time.<div>
<br></div><div>James Simmons</div><div><br></div></div><div><br><br><div>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Note that the only visible difference in what I'm proposing is that Sugar is shown full screen. The script takes care of creating another X session, nothing you need to remember :)<div>
<br></div><div>I guess the question is... Would it be a big problem for you if there was no option to run Sugar in a window and we would always run it fullscreen?<div><div><span></span><br>
<br>On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, James Simmons wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I do use Sugar running in a window when I develop Activities. Granted it doesn't work that well, and some kinds of keystrokes don't make it into the window, but I find that it is a convenient way to test my Activities. I understand that you can have more than one X session going on a Linux box and maybe that is an alternative but I can never remember how to do it. So I'd prefer to keep it as an option even if there are known problems.<div>
<br></div><div>James Simmons</div></div><div><br><br><div>On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <span dir="ltr"><<a>gonzalo@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I use the option too.<div>For me should be better keep it, just document where does not work.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div><div>Gonzalo </div></font></span></div><div><div><div><br><br><div>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Manuel Quiñones <span dir="ltr"><<a>manuq@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">As Walter said. For me it is nice to have the window option, and I use it. But if it is a pain to maintain and takes time from you Daniel, I'm +1 for dropping it.<br><div><div><div>
<br><br><div>
2013/6/25 Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a>walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
>From the POV of developers, the only advantage I see for seeing a<br>
window size is to test how Sugar/Activities run at different screen<br>
sizes. But much of this can be accomplished by setting the resolution<br>
of the full-screen X display, so I would argue it is not a priority.<br>
<br>
regards.<br>
<br>
-walter<br>
<div><div><br>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> with sugar-emulator we used to run by default in a window. These days<br>
> sugar-runner defaults to full screen but it's still possible to make it use<br>
> a window by setting the resolution preference.<br>
><br>
> I would like to understand how badly it would affect people if we only<br>
> allowed to run in fullscreen. Are you using the resolution preference? Would<br>
> it be a major problem if it went away?<br>
><br>
> The issue is that at the moment there is no good solution for nesting X<br>
> inside X. Xephyr is buggy and pretty much unmaintained, and it's now<br>
> crashing at startup on unstable Ubuntu. Xvnc might be an alternative but<br>
> last time I tried it was also crashy, it would be a bit complicated to setup<br>
> and it won't allow us to test hardware acceleration if we need that in the<br>
> future.<br>
><br>
> Always running a full X session would probably simplify and make<br>
> sugar-runner more solid. There are challenges with that approach too with<br>
> systemd, but I believe those might be solvable.<br>
><br>
> I'm probably not going to do anything about this until it becomes a problem<br>
> for sugar-build officially supported distros, but I'm thinking about the<br>
> issue and I'm interested in people feedback.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Daniel Narvaez<br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
> <a>Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
><br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Walter Bender<br>
Sugar Labs<br>
<a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">http://www.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
<a>Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div><br><br>-- <br>Daniel Narvaez<br><br>