The stupid toolbox
Aaron J. Seigo
aseigo at kde.org
Wed Mar 5 16:04:18 CET 2008
On Wednesday 05 March 2008, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 04:36:30 JST, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > an example from the kickoff thread was the "people might get confused and
> > not get that the icon is associated with the entry" claim. holy not based
> > in reality, batman!
>
> This is (was?) based in reality. While I didn't respond to that thread, I
> have said in the past that I didn't like the highlighting. The reason I
> gave was that it wasn't immediately obvious whether an item had a submenu
> or not.
refering to the icon, not arrow. not that it matters ...
> > * i can ignore the point (and get called out for not listening)
> > * i can address the point (and get caught in useless, though sometimes
> > interesting, discussion)
> > * i can point out that the point is irrelevant (and get called out for
> > being dismissive)
>
> This viewpoint is the main reason why I haven't done anything in the last
> couple of months. I got the feeling that discussion is futile on just about
> any point.
i'm sorry you feel that way. there's been significant conversation and strides
forward, but i agree that threads like this one are just deadly. the question
i have is: what points are you interested in discussing?
it's pretty interesting that we can go ahead and make sweeping changes to
things like how svg themes are handled and presented (most of which i had no
involvement in the code, the ideas of which were not mine, etc) but people
get totally mired in "toolbox?!"
> Of your three options above, I'd suggest taking number two but
> without starting with the presumption that the discussion will be useless.
it's honestly not where i started out, say, 6-10 months ago. this feeling on
my part has come from dealing with topics like "toolbox?!" and "full width
selection or bust!" i really feel that it has resulted in very little useful
discussion and that what people really want to hear is "you're right, go
ahead."
> > i'd like to not have to deal with no-win situations. so how do we meet
> > those two desires? i'm all ears and would really, really like a path to
> > solution.
>
> It's not an issue for applets as there's always playground for that. The
> main confusion is about libplasma and plasmaapp. There's no clear rules on
> what can be done by who and when.
of course, i was talking about discussion that, to put it kindly, amounts to
little more than bikeshedding.
for development, there aren't really "rules": people work on what they'd like
to. we have some lists of open tasks available on the wiki, there's lots of
stuff in bugs.kde.org, there are things that we have discussed here on the
list.
if you have questions about something, ask someone. or just start hacking. the
common thread i find is that if someone is actually working on something or
comes with an honestly open question, we get through the topic really fast
and with results.
so .. what sort of rules or direction are you looking for?
> There's the review board now, but it's also unclear when it should and
> shouldn't be used.
i wrote an email on the fifth of february to clarify this. the title is "small
clarification on review-board use =)" here is what i said there:
<quote>
due to some apparent non-clarity on the intended use of review-board (what,
you can't read my mind yet?! ;), here are some thoughts on when to use it:
* when it's a non-trivial change you'd like feedback on
* and it touches libplasma, plasma or one of the "core" applets/engines[1]
you really don't need to (unless you really want to, of course =) when:
* it's your own applet/engine
* it's a trivial / obvious fix. we can continue to post-review those ones via
the svn list quite easily.
[1] these are things like the menu or taskbar which are both tricky and mildly
critical to things working well
</quote>
this was not the first time this has been said, either, but evidently this was
missed by you, and perhaps others. so where i can put this that you will, and
others, will find it?
> Perhaps it would be better if everyone used it for
> everything until that distinction can be made?
i don't think that's really necessary. the distinction is, imho, pretty much
up to common sense.
> That would at least give
> people a chance to question you on changes that you view as trivial and
> might allow less insightful people to better understand your decisions...
anytime you aren't sure about something, throw it up on r-b. as you become
more sure of things, that'll probably happen less often for the "trivial"
things.
the best part of r-b is that more people, other than me, are actually
reviewing patches these days.
--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/panel-devel/attachments/20080305/23c9f946/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the Panel-devel
mailing list