light-themes

Code review comment for lp:~dashua/light-themes/border-less.metacity.and.fixes

border-less.metacity.and.fixes
Merge into trunk

Revision history for this message

Paul Sladen (sladen) wrote on 2011-03-23:

Hello Florian, I believe (from memory) that the succession of public development conversation has been the following, please correct it if it's wrong:

  (1) bug #733233 - document/implement 0x borders and shadows that were previously only documented/suggested on a private design mailing list
  (2) bug #733431 - document/revert 0px border issues from 'light-themes', reflecting the original concerns expressed on a private mailing list in February that there might be problems (sladen) and subsequently fix Unity-2D to cope (njpatel)
  (3) bug #740576 - document/re-add 0px borders into light-themes - proposal, for discussion, tracking, possible deployment

Specifically on the question of "Unity-2D can cope" this is based on the belief that a fix for (2) to 'unity-2d' may have been committed based. This is based on the status updates made in bug #733431 comment #6.1 and comment 6.2:

* 2011-03-12: Florian Boucault changed in unity-2d: status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
* 2011-03-13: Vish on changed in light-themes: status: Fix Committed → Fix Released

Admittedly, the changelogs available for 'unity-2d' in Ubuntu do not record a link to bug #733431 it is not easy to traceback further via the metadata available. In the 'debian/changelog' there is simply a mention of a "New upstream Version release" two days after the above status changes:

http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/u/unity-2d/unity-2d_3.6.2-0ubuntu2/changelog

  unity-2d (3.6.2-0ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low
  * New upstream bugfix release
   -- Oliver Grawert <email address hidden> Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:59:55 +0100

If there is a technical reason why zero-pixel borders will not work on Unity-2D as of 3.6.2-0ubuntu1, it would be most useful to get it documented on bug #740576 as at the moment it would imply that the current title is misleading.

(It's probably worth noting that I, personally, am indifferent and do not have a preference or desire either way. However, I do like discussion, clarity and ability to track the development process with each change *clearly* mapping back to its rationale (the bug report), its implementation (the linked branches) and its deployment (the distro Committed/Released status).

Hello Florian, I believe (from memory) that the succession of public development conversation has been the following, please correct it if it's wrong:

Specifically on the question of "Unity-2D can cope" this is based on the belief that a fix for (2) to 'unity-2d' may have been committed based.  This is based on the status updates made in bug #733431 comment #6.1 and comment 6.2:

* 2011-03-12: Florian Boucault changed in unity-2d: status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
  * 2011-03-13: Vish on changed in light-themes: status: Fix Committed → Fix Released

Admittedly, the changelogs available for 'unity-2d' in Ubuntu do not record a link to bug #733431 it is not easy to traceback further via the metadata available.  In the 'debian/changelog' there is simply a mention of a "New upstream Version release" two days after the above status changes:

http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/u/unity-2d/unity-2d_3.6.2-0ubuntu2/changelog

unity-2d (3.6.2-0ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low
  * New upstream bugfix release
   -- Oliver Grawert <ogra@ubuntu.com>  Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:59:55 +0100

(It's probably worth noting that I, personally, am indifferent and do not have a preference or desire  either way.  However, I do like discussion, clarity and ability to track the development process with each change *clearly* mapping back to its rationale (the bug report), its implementation (the linked branches) and its deployment (the distro Committed/Released status).

« Back to merge proposal