On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:29 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mar 5 décembre 2006 13:28, Dan Williams a écrit : > > > Human manipulatable != machine maniuplatable > > It seems to me the great failure of gconf users was to make this > asumption, and consider that since the settings were available through > gconf-editor there was no reason to clean-up/prettify the XML > representation. > > Just as sysadmins need to accept some structure in config files is > required to ease machine manipulation, developpers need to accept > indentation, comments, careful design are required to ease human > manipulation. > > There is no inherent reason elements in XML files can not be properly > indented, commented and ordered so diff/patch and manual editing works > (even if xslt + xsltproc should eventually superceded diff/patch for XML > files). It will cost design time, it will cost processing time, but it's > doable. > > All the recent profiling ops show massive over-reading and polling of conf > files by GNOME apps. Did we really mess up the config storage layer only > to help applications writers abuse it in every possible way? ARe you just making belligerent comments, or do you have any proof for this "recent profiling" ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
