Change default values of some config.

Change default values of some config.

This CL changes the default value of use_global_engine, enable_by_default and use_sys_layout to TRUE. And also removes the default trigger key.

BUG=none
TEST=none

[James Su, 2010-05-12 06:03:51]

As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely without
worrying about code merge issue.

[satorux1, 2010-05-12 06:50:46]

I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with the
upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may refactor
bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?

On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely without
> worrying about code merge issue.

[James Su, 2010-05-12 06:54:01]

As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need to merge
anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a new
branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.

On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with the
> upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may refactor
> bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> 
> On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely without
> > worrying about code merge issue.

[satorux1, 2010-05-12 07:52:09]

LGTM.

Even if we go with 'rebase', we'll still need to fix conflicts if needed, right?
I'm a bit worried that the conflicts may occur more than we expect. However,
since the repository is now actively maintained by you, it's up to your
judgement. If you think it's the right way to go, please go ahead.

On 2010/05/12 06:54:01, James Su wrote:
> As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need to
merge
> anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a new
> branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.
> 
> On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> > I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with the
> > upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may refactor
> > bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> > 
> > On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely
without
> > > worrying about code merge issue.

[Yusuke Sato, 2010-05-12 07:56:12]

James,

Changing use_sys_layout to TRUE seems to make Shift+Alt (press shift, then press
alt) unusable. Can you please check this before submission?

On 2010/05/12 07:52:09, satorux1 wrote:
> LGTM.
> 
> Even if we go with 'rebase', we'll still need to fix conflicts if needed,
right?
> I'm a bit worried that the conflicts may occur more than we expect. However,
> since the repository is now actively maintained by you, it's up to your
> judgement. If you think it's the right way to go, please go ahead.
> 
> On 2010/05/12 06:54:01, James Su wrote:
> > As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need to
> merge
> > anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a new
> > branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.
> > 
> > On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> > > I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with the
> > > upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may
refactor
> > > bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> > > 
> > > On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > > > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely
> without
> > > > worrying about code merge issue.

[James Su, 2010-05-12 08:00:09]

On 2010/05/12 07:52:09, satorux1 wrote:
> LGTM.
> 
> Even if we go with 'rebase', we'll still need to fix conflicts if needed,
right?
> I'm a bit worried that the conflicts may occur more than we expect. However,
> since the repository is now actively maintained by you, it's up to your
> judgement. If you think it's the right way to go, please go ahead.
As we continue to push our enhancement to ibus upstream, we will be facing more
and more conflicts. But fortunately it's easy to deal with such kind of
conflicts by using rebase tool, as long as we won't bother with the master
branch.

> 
> On 2010/05/12 06:54:01, James Su wrote:
> > As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need to
> merge
> > anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a new
> > branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.
> > 
> > On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> > > I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with the
> > > upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may
refactor
> > > bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> > > 
> > > On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > > > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely
> without
> > > > worrying about code merge issue.

[James Su, 2010-05-12 08:00:32]

I'll test it.

On 2010/05/12 07:56:12, Yusuke Sato wrote:
> James,
> 
> Changing use_sys_layout to TRUE seems to make Shift+Alt (press shift, then
press
> alt) unusable. Can you please check this before submission?
> 
> On 2010/05/12 07:52:09, satorux1 wrote:
> > LGTM.
> > 
> > Even if we go with 'rebase', we'll still need to fix conflicts if needed,
> right?
> > I'm a bit worried that the conflicts may occur more than we expect. However,
> > since the repository is now actively maintained by you, it's up to your
> > judgement. If you think it's the right way to go, please go ahead.
> > 
> > On 2010/05/12 06:54:01, James Su wrote:
> > > As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need to
> > merge
> > > anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a
new
> > > branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.
> > > 
> > > On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> > > > I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with
the
> > > > upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may
> refactor
> > > > bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > > > > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely
> > without
> > > > > worrying about code merge issue.

[Yusuke Sato, 2010-05-12 08:11:44]

Thanks. Besides that, LGTM.

On 2010/05/12 08:00:32, James Su wrote:
> I'll test it.
> 
> On 2010/05/12 07:56:12, Yusuke Sato wrote:
> > James,
> > 
> > Changing use_sys_layout to TRUE seems to make Shift+Alt (press shift, then
> press
> > alt) unusable. Can you please check this before submission?
> > 
> > On 2010/05/12 07:52:09, satorux1 wrote:
> > > LGTM.
> > > 
> > > Even if we go with 'rebase', we'll still need to fix conflicts if needed,
> > right?
> > > I'm a bit worried that the conflicts may occur more than we expect.
However,
> > > since the repository is now actively maintained by you, it's up to your
> > > judgement. If you think it's the right way to go, please go ahead.
> > > 
> > > On 2010/05/12 06:54:01, James Su wrote:
> > > > As we now use branches for our changes against upstream, we won't need
to
> > > merge
> > > > anymore. Next time, when we want to merge new upstream code, we create a
> new
> > > > branch and do rebase instead, which is much easier than merge.
> > > > 
> > > > On 2010/05/12 06:50:46, satorux1 wrote:
> > > > > I'm rather worried if local changes like this would make merging with
> the
> > > > > upstream hard in the future. For instance, the upstream author may
> > refactor
> > > > > bus/ibusimpl.c, and that would make merging hard. What do you think?
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 2010/05/12 06:03:51, James Su wrote:
> > > > > > As we branch off ibus now, we can change these default value freely
> > > without
> > > > > > worrying about code merge issue.

[Yusuke Sato, 2010-05-13 01:03:22]

On 2010/05/12 08:00:32, James Su wrote:
> I'll test it.

Can you let me know the test results?

[James Su, 2010-05-13 02:18:04]

On 2010/05/13 01:03:22, Yusuke Sato wrote:
> On 2010/05/12 08:00:32, James Su wrote:
> > I'll test it.
> 
> Can you let me know the test results?

Sorry forgot to give you an update. The alt-shift things won't work, but it's a
different issue. I'll address it in the CL for chrome part.

[Yusuke Sato, 2010-05-13 02:25:43]

I see. Let's submit it as soon as possible to avoid regressions.

-- Yusuke

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM, <suzhe@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2010/05/13 01:03:22, Yusuke Sato wrote:
>
>> On 2010/05/12 08:00:32, James Su wrote:
>> > I'll test it.
>>
>
>  Can you let me know the test results?
>>
>
> Sorry forgot to give you an update. The alt-shift things won't work, but
> it's a
> different issue. I'll address it in the CL for chrome part.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/2008016/show
>