| 25 Aug 2021 |
 piegames | Ooh that's interesting. This might indeed have been the cause | 17:22:29 |
| piegames | I'll have to think about what happens on an unhandled collision though (probably some extension overrides the other in some way), and more importantly how to handle collisions with manually packaged extensions in general—this is an edge case that has flown under the radar previously. | 17:23:44 |
| piegames | Josh: Please ping me/review request me for PRs and issues involving the GNOME extensions, so that I can keep up to date. GitHub's codeowners feature ought to do this automatically, but it sadly is fundamentally broken so I can't use it | 17:25:07 |
 Josh MM | piegames: Sure thing. Will do. | 17:26:12 |
| 26 Aug 2021 |
|  Max joined the room. | 01:27:59 |
| Josh MM changed their display name from Josh to Josh MM. | 19:55:58 |
 andi- | I have a question: Where do I have to open an issue regarding focus stealing? If I have a fullscreen application (watching a movie, playing a game, focusing on some fullscreen terminal,...) why is a dialog allowed to steal my focus? In my case this is e.g. due to gpg's gtk pinentry spawning a dialog and I must react to that or else I can't get my focus back to another window.
Doesn't that defeat the whole point about waylands model if not giving applications access to my keystrokes in another window if they can just ask the WM to move the focus there? | 23:59:34 |
| 27 Aug 2021 |
 Jan Tojnar | andi-: I would probably write on GNOME discourse | 00:08:33 |
| Jan Tojnar | it would likely be an issue in mutter or gtk or gnome-shell | 00:09:35 |
| andi- | I fear it is due to gtk2 being used by pinentry and backwards compat or something. | 00:10:18 |
| Jan Tojnar | might be; xwayland apps sometimes do weird things | 00:12:00 |
| Jan Tojnar | but I would still expect WM to be able to handle it | 00:12:27 |
| andi- | This didn't age well: https://superuser.com/questions/143044/how-to-prevent-new-windows-from-stealing-focus-in-gnome | 00:13:13 |
| andi- | Is compiz even still a thing? | 00:13:21 |
| Jan Tojnar | it is dead | 00:15:20 |
| Jan Tojnar | some people tried to bring the wobbly windows back to gnome (libanimation) | 00:16:44 |
| Jan Tojnar | but I do not think it went anywhere | 00:16:59 |
| andi- | It was fun in '05 or so but I never really saw why that would be any improvement. | 00:17:08 |
| Jan Tojnar | turn on flames and 3D cube and people will be in awe | 00:19:08 |
 Zhaofeng Li | Haha, desktop was fun back then. Wobbly windows is part of the reason some people installed Linux in the first place 😄 | 00:45:15 |
| * Zhaofeng Li used paper airplane animation for window closing for a long time | 00:46:11 |
| * Zhaofeng Li * used the paper airplane animation for window closing for a long time | 00:46:19 |
| piegames | I think you can still activate wobbly windows in KDE | 09:41:10 |
| 30 Aug 2021 |
| piegames | What's our way to handle GNOME extensions with run-time external dependencies? Is it okay to require that a dependency is available in the system path (as it would be done normally) or do we patch them so that use some specific path to the Nix store? | 18:18:16 |
 hexa | patching them is the more user-friendly way | 18:41:51 |
| hexa | leaking binaries into your PATH because you are using them under the hood is meh | 18:42:29 |
| piegames | No, but "requiring binaries in PATH" would be feasible | 18:43:06 |
| Jan Tojnar | piegames: generally, if it is mandatory/core functionality dependency, I tend to patch | 18:50:20 |
| Jan Tojnar | if it is optional but majority of users would probably want it, I tend to patch as well | 18:50:52 |
| Jan Tojnar | if it is optional and niche or too big or otherwise problematic, people who need it can install it themselves | 18:51:31 |
