[haiku-development] Re: Set a custom icon for a BAlert
- From: Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:35:35 -0400
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't see why they would need to be released independently. If you want
> bleeding edge, you'd probably just say to, and differentiate your Haiku
> version by revision number (ie. that would be the unstable channel).
You really honestly think that an application like WebPositive, which
is now included with Haiku, will only be updated within an OS update?
Really?
I hate the Ubuntu "update every five minutes" approach as much as the
next guy, but I think we will need to be a bit more fine-grained than
how BeOS did things.
And while I think having an "unstable" channel is a good idea, I still
think the stable channel will have the need to have various pieces of
Haiku updated independently. In that sense I think our packages might
need to be a bit more fine-grained that what I recall Ingo had
experimented with.
So to bring this back to the discussion at hand, showing the version
of applications (at least some of the "major ones") in about boxes is
a viable reason to have at least some individual about boxes, since
IMO the version of these applications should not necessarily be tied
to Haiku's version.
> If we backport things into an older release branch, we would still need to
> do a point release of some sorts to get it out of the door (including new
> test cycle, etc.).
Yes, but this could be done at a more fine-grained level too. There
could be OS-level fixes that are backported and made into an OS point
release (such as kernel fixes, driver additions, changes to libbe.so),
and then there are application fixes which are independent of Haiku,
and could be released as just an update of that application.
> Sure, that would be a reason to have about dialogs. Just in case we decide
> to get them back one day, we should still omit the authors from the dialog
> then. In any case, I think package management is indeed a good argument for
> getting them back.
I'm actually surprised that you guys didn't just immediately scoff at
the bug report button idea, but I guess it isn't a bad idea overall.
But I will grant you it is indeed not the only reason to have about
dialogs.
I will agree that for most of the minor included Haiku applications,
the authors in the about dialogs is redundant. Though you guys will
still argue about having individual authors listed in source files,
which is really the same sort of thing. I'm sure I've touched quite a
few source files where I didn't add my name to the authors list
(certainly in recent commits.) If we really care we always have the
git and svn history. But that is another discussion ;)
I guess my point in this overall is that removing about boxes in Haiku
applications is not something which can be defined as a hard rule, but
more as something which should be examined for each case. Removing the
Workspaces about box, great, removing the Magnify about box (if it
even has one), fine, but removing the about box from the Debugger,
ShowImage or WebPositive, not so much. I view those as more
substantial applications which I could envision being released and
updated independently.
Thinking about packages, I could envision the about box pointing to
the package that an application was distributed in. So for example if
we ended up having a Utility package which had Magnify, CharacterMap,
etc, each of those could have a simple about box which shows the
version of the package they came in, with a button to check for
updates of that package. In fact it probably would not be too hard to
make a generic PackageAboutWindow class which can easily be included
in all those sorts of applications.
--
Regards,
Ryan
Other related posts:
