Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add button and dialog for NTP servers configuration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 11:58 -0400, Chris Lumens wrote:
> > +    def _render_working(self, column, renderer, model, itr, user_data=None):
> > +        #get the value in the second column
> > +        value = model[itr][1]
> > +
> > +        if value == SERVER_QUERY:
> > +            renderer.set_property("stock-id", "gtk-dialog-question")
> > +        elif value == SERVER_OK:
> > +            renderer.set_property("stock-id", "gtk-yes")
> > +        else:
> > +            renderer.set_property("stock-id", "gtk-no")
> 
> I'm not convinced these are the right icons to use, but they are
> probably okay for now.  Mo, any suggestions?  My first thought was to
> use the check and X icons.
> 
> > +                <child>
> > +                  <object class="GtkLabel" id="poolsNote">
> > +                    <property name="visible">True</property>
> > +                    <property name="can_focus">False</property>
> > +                    <property name="label" translatable="yes">Note: pool servers may not be available all the time</property>
> > +                    <attributes>
> > +                      <attribute name="font-desc" value="Sans Italic 9"/>
> > +                    </attributes>
> > +                  </object>
> > +                  <packing>
> > +                    <property name="expand">False</property>
> > +                    <property name="fill">True</property>
> > +                    <property name="position">2</property>
> > +                  </packing>
> > +                </child>
> 
> I have two problems with this:
> 
> (1) I don't think the message really works for the user.  A "pool
> server" is kind of a funny term and really all you've got to go on is
> that the hostname might have ".pool." in it.  Also, why may they not be
> available sometime?
As I've seen the cases while testing these patches, those
x.fedora.pool.ntp.org servers (and probably the other .pool. severs as
well) are working (reachable and returning data) at most one in the
time. So my concern was that users would uncheck the others if they are
marked as not working resulting in a setup with only one of the .pool.
servers, which is not intended.

> 
> (2) You're assuming that the OS even has pool servers configured.
> Fedora does, but does RHEL?  Do rebuilds?
I don't see any problem in displaying the note even if there are no such
servers configured.

-- 
Vratislav Podzimek

Anaconda Rider | Red Hat, Inc. | Brno - Czech Republic

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list


[Index of Archives]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]
  Powered by Linux