After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 309567 - port more properties to the async system
port more properties to the async system
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
trunk
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Thomas Thurman
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-07-06 06:24 UTC by Havoc Pennington
Modified: 2006-03-25 23:28 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
untested patch for async properties (25.73 KB, patch)
2005-07-06 06:25 UTC, Havoc Pennington 		none Details | Review
Move some code out of window.c into window-props.c (24.71 KB, patch)
2006-02-28 04:26 UTC, Thomas Thurman 		accepted-commit_after_freeze Details | Review
Revised version against current HEAD (25.47 KB, patch)
2006-03-25 22:28 UTC, Thomas Thurman 		committed Details | Review

Description Havoc Pennington 2005-07-06 06:24:32 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
This is an untested/probably-does-not-compile patch to port more properties to
the async setup. I just want to get a copy somewhere besides my hard drive since
who knows when I'll work on it again.


Steps to reproduce:


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Havoc Pennington 2005-07-06 06:25:33 UTC 
Created attachment 48705 [details] [review]
untested patch for async properties
Comment 2 Thomas Thurman 2006-02-28 04:26:01 UTC 
Created attachment 60284 [details] [review]
Move some code out of window.c into window-props.c

I went through this line by line, comparing the old and new versions in the patch with the current version in CVS, and the attached is a patch against current CVS. It compiles and runs fine, but I'm not sure whether there's anything specific I should look for for testing in the resulting version.
Comment 3 Elijah Newren 2006-03-09 04:05:33 UTC 
I looked over it and couldn't find any problems.  Maybe we just need to commit it to get some wider testing.  :-)  I'd rather avoid having the 2-14 branch and HEAD diverge too much right now, so let's wait until a couple weeks after 2.14.0 goes out.
Comment 4 Elijah Newren 2006-03-25 06:52:52 UTC 
Looks like the patch fails to apply now due to your change from bug 328211; but it should be a simple fix.  Can you update the patch to head, commit it, and attach it here for reference?
Comment 5 Thomas Thurman 2006-03-25 22:28:52 UTC 
Created attachment 62009 [details] [review]
Revised version against current HEAD

Okay, here's the patch. I'll check it in now, then.
Comment 6 Thomas Thurman 2006-03-25 23:28:04 UTC 
Checked into HEAD. -> FIXED