Re: [lmi] Enumerating open technical issues

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:37:19 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> - What have we broken that used to work?
GC> 
GC> Building with como. I know a way to fix this, though.

 I think we should really start building with como ourselves here (we
discussed this before but for some reason we never started using it...),
shouldn't we? BTW, speaking about this I wonder if it wouldn't be a good
idea to set up an automatic recompilation of LMI on a Unix machine where we
could cross-compile it for Windows (using mingw32) but also test Unix
compilation which otherwise needs to be regularly fixed because it's not
tested that often.

GC> - What have we done that should be undone?
...
GC> I think we should remove the constraint; then the (replacement) code
GC> becomes trivial. Normal users shouldn't care how the file looks--the
GC> GUI makes that unnecessary--and comments such as
GC>   Specify the customary extension for your spreadsheet
GC> should be help elements in an '.xrc' file.

 I definitely agree with this.

GC> Porting: I think I've moved substantially everything to MAIN
GC> except for 'xml_resources_test.cpp' (it didn't seem to pass all
GC> tests in the branch, and I don't know why) and the new xml files
GC> (I'd like to find more-descriptive names first). But I may have
GC> missed something else.

 In any case, no new work should be done on gnome-xml-branch, right?

GC> - What else could we now achieve with little effort?
GC> 
GC> Edit all configurable settings in the new GUI. Not everything in
GC> 'configurable_settings.xml' really should be user-configurable.
GC> And class configurable_settings wants to be subsumed into class
GC> PreferencesModel.

 Yes, indeed.

 Regards,
VZ