Unity

Merge lp://staging/~genius12a/unity/unity into lp://staging/unity

unity
Merge into trunk

Proposed by Anish Dowlut on 2014-06-26

Status:

Rejected

Rejected by:

Christopher Townsend on 2015-03-12

Proposed branch:

lp://staging/~genius12a/unity/unity

Merge into:

lp://staging/unity

Diff against target:

30 lines (+5/-1)

1 file modified

launcher/ApplicationLauncherIcon.cpp (+5/-1)

To merge this branch:

bzr merge lp://staging/~genius12a/unity/unity

Medium

Fix Released

Link a bug report

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
Marco Trevisan (Treviño)		2014-06-26	Disapprove on 2014-06-28
Review via email: mp+224692@code.staging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

I have made a commit to fix bug #1170647. The revision number is 3831.

Revision history for this message

Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote on 2014-06-28:

I've another solution for this, more complex, but it's something I need to do ASAP... We still want these device and trash icons to be used to handle the file manager, but we don't want the nautilus icon to fight with them...

So, for now I'd prefer to avoid this.

review: Disapprove

Revision history for this message

Anish Dowlut (genius12a) wrote on 2014-06-28:

On 06/28/2014 04:40 AM, Marco Trevisan (Treviño) wrote:
> Review: Disapprove
>
> I've another solution for this, more complex, but it's something I need to do ASAP... We still want these device and trash icons to be used to handle the file manager, but we don't want the nautilus icon to fight with them...
>
> So, for now I'd prefer to avoid this.
I do agree with you that the devices and trash icons could be better
used in Unity. I've noted that you've already started taking steps to
achieve this in bug #1063830, #1161323 and #75393. I understand that you
are still working on a perfect solution for the problem. However, since
the solution is not complete yet, the changes in behavior that you've
made to Unity does not seem correct at the moment (which is why bug
#1170647 was filed). Of course, the new behavior would make complete
sense once the whole solution has been delivered. But for now, I believe
it would be best if all changes were reverted until the complete
solution is available.

By the way, I have a few ideas that could help solving the whole problem
and may be I can help a bit with the code. Where is the right place to
discuss that?

Revision history for this message

Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote on 2014-07-04:

Sure, happy to hear feedback. Feel free to ping me in #ubuntu-desktop or #ubuntu-unity in freenode

Revision history for this message

Christopher Townsend (townsend) wrote on 2015-03-12:

I'm rejecting this as Marco has disapproved.

Unmerged revisions

3831. By Anish Dowlut on 2014-06-26

Fixed bug #1170647

Description of fix: Commented a section of code. The section of code was introduced to fix an earlier bug #753938, but it lead to incorrect behaviours in a few situations which are described in bug #1170647. The expected behaviours specified in these two bug reports actually contradicts each other. Hence, in order to fix bug #1170647, the changes for bug #753938 had to be reverted.