[Tails-dev] Regarding #6882 (small screens vs. greeter)

Supprimer ce message

Répondre à ce message
Auteur: intrigeri
Date:  
À: tails-dev
Sujet: [Tails-dev] Regarding #6882 (small screens vs. greeter)
Hi,

as requested by anonym on IRC, I'm reviewing
feature/6882-scrollable-options.

The good news comes first: it works well for me, in a variety of
screen resolutions. Congrats for winning this battle against GTK!

I've pushed a minor bugfix (565dcb78) to the relevant branch in the
greeter's repo, to unbreak text display and existing translations.
Tested only by patching things live, so I'll let anonym build a .deb
and merge the whole thing if he's happy with it.


There is one single thing that prevents me from merging this branch
now, here it is. I'm quite surprised to see the order of options on
the "More options" screen being changed at the last minute, in an
otherwise unrelated commit, and without any explanation that I was
able to find. (FTR, the "Network settings" section was moved in 2nd
position, right after the "Admin Password" one.) Was this done on
purpose? If so, why?

(Still, meta/process discussion put aside, and calming down a bit the
control freak in me: the new ordering *feels* better to me, as
I *guess* the need for "advanced" network configuration to be more
frequent than the need for Windows Camouflage, or for disabling MAC
spoofing. Of course, this is pure speculation :)

Anyhow, if we want too make this change, then the list of options on
[[doc/first_steps/startup_options]] must be changed accordingly: it's
on purpose that options are listed there in the same order as they are
shown in the UI. anonym, I'll let you do it before merging, if you
decide that the new order is indeed the way to go.


Also, the place where the gray frame around the options is shown feels
very ugly, and I suspect the GNOME HIG specify a greater amount of
whitespace should be left between it and the widget it contains.
That's a regression compared to 0.23~rc1, but it seems too late to
fix/review/merge it, so I've filed #6935 about it, flagged for 1.0,
assigned to anonym. Too bad this regression was introduced so late...
but presumably this should be trivial to fix for 1.0, once the HIG
oracle has told you how many pixels should be there :)

Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc