Relevancy of Preferences KCM

[Dominique Devriese]

Frans Englich writes:

> On Monday 16 February 2004 02:00, Russell Miller wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sunday 15 February 2004 18:56, Zack Rusin wrote:
>> > Then instead of having so many things in the KControl we could
>> > export the more advanced and rarely used ones as KConfig XT files
>> > which kconfigeditor would use.
>>
>> This is what I'm talking about :) I don't mind this at all.  Give
>> me a way to tweak what I want to, even if it's in a catch-all, and
>> I'm happy.
>>
>> Just don't go removing stuff.  That annoys me.

> Removing stuff which people need is a big no no. But lessen the
> amount of stuff really makes things easier - it makes organization
> easier, no doubt I would say. (so it is of interest to make the
> amount of options in KControl smaller).  

I much agree with this.

> What would people think if a kcfg file were there instead?

I think this is the best solution.  There are a lot of options in
KControl that are only useful for a very limited amount of people, yet
someone always manages to just need that one little feature when it is
proposed to remove it.  I think KConfEdit can be of great help here.

cheers
domi