Merge lp:~3v1n0/unity-control-center/unity-lowgfx-support into lp:unity-control-center
| Status: | Superseded |
|---|---|
| Proposed branch: | lp:~3v1n0/unity-control-center/unity-lowgfx-support |
| Merge into: | lp:unity-control-center |
| Diff against target: |
1108 lines (+576/-118) 2 files modified
panels/appearance/appearance.ui (+143/-35) panels/appearance/cc-appearance-panel.c (+433/-83) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~3v1n0/unity-control-center/unity-lowgfx-support |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sebastien Bacher | 2017-04-27 | Approve on 2017-06-26 | |
| Matthew Paul Thomas | 2017-06-26 | Pending | |
| Unity Control Center development team | 2017-04-04 | Pending | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
This proposal has been superseded by a proposal from 2017-06-26.
Commit Message
appearance: support multiple compiz setting profiles, and update lowgfx key accordingly
We only control the value of the "lowgfx" key here, and monitor changes.
The actual change of the profile is up to the unity components.
We monitor the current used profile by looking at org.compiz settings.
I've created a small utility class, GroupedGSettings, that allows to easily
manage multiple settings that share the same schema, but that have different paths.
It allows to set a default path and get value changes from that, while setting
parameters for every value.
So now, when you change any compiz parameter, it will apply to both 'unity' and
'unity-lowgfx' profiles. While we'll just monitor the current one for changes.
Description of the Change
Rework over lp:~hikiko/unity-control-center/unity-control-center.lowgfx/+merge/314696 which can be considered deprecated by this.
Also it needs lp:~3v1n0/unity/lowgfx-profile-setter
| Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote : | # |
Nope... As I just fixed the work that was done previously in UI side, so not sure there was some interaction in that side.
Anyway,let me split this in the two parts though, so in case we can just backport the non-UI side.
| Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote : | # |
For design, this is the look so far... http://
| Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote : | # |
There are many language and layout problems here, but some of them are not new. Unfortunately the diff is too long for me to tell exactly which ones. Please provide a Before screenshot to compare with the After screenshot. Thanks!
| Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote : | # |
Here it is: http://
| Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote : | # |
Thanks.
Unfortunately I can’t tell what “Appearance and other effects” refers to.
Last year another option was introduced in exactly the same place, labelled “Low graphics mode”. <http://
Is this the same option? What happened to the previous implementation?
| Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote : | # |
It's the same option, but that option actually never landed because of other non-UI problems with that implementation.
I'm feel to change the wording to what you prefer, though.
- 12904. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-04-04
-
appearance: remove unneded includes
- 12905. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-04-06
-
go back to use INCLUDES in Makefile.am it still works fine
- 12906. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-26
-
appearance.ui: revert changes, as we only care to low level changes for now
- 12907. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-26
-
Appearance: remove UI that controls the GFX mode option
- 12908. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-26
-
Appearance: add UI for controlling the unity gfx-mode
- 12909. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-27
-
appearance.ui: redesign the look of the visual effects section
mpt gave a good input on this.
- 12910. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-27
-
appearance: ensure we also hide the related separators when needed
- 12911. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-27
-
appearance: hide lowgfx parameters if gsetting or profiles aren't there
- 12912. By Marco Trevisan (Treviño) on 2017-06-27
-
appearance: remove unneeded nested boxes


Looks good, did we get input from design on the layout though?