3.2 issues :(

[Frans Englich]

On Sunday 18 January 2004 11:15, Chris Lee wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 18 January 2004 2:52 am, Frans Englich wrote:
> > Sorry, you're wrong AFAICT. I didn't change the entry's name - only it's
> > default /value/. I don't know why George's old settings was not kept,
> > perhaps he started on a fresh .kde, dunno.
>
> George specifically stated that the setting was changed on him without him
> starting fresh. The way he stated it made it fairly obvious (to me at
> least) that he didn't start up with a fresh ~/.kde and end up surprised
> that the date was missing - he had specifically said "I want the date in my
> clock" before, and the commit made it disappear against his will.
>
> > No. Sorry, you misunderstand. I don't think the standard practices of KDE
> > is wrong, they are fully reasonable. But Dawit says I didn't follow them,
> > which I clearly did, but most important - he does so on no grounds. My
> > decisions were fully reasonable, George is not listed in any license
> > headers in kicker/applets/clock/*, kicker/AUTHORS nor does cvs annotate
> > tell anything useful for the relevant files. Dawit says I have stepped on
> > the maintainer while there's nothing which indicates so.
> > Again, the commit was done by Aaron - I laid the proposal on
> > kde-usability, people liked it, Aaron said ok and commit'ed it. During
> > the time, I have submitted it to John Firebaugh(which /is/ the maintainer
> > of Kicker) and when it was clear Aaron already had commited it - he said
> > OK.
>
> This much was not made clear by your previous emails - instead you chose to
> insult KDE and our developers, and went completely off-topic while doing
> so.
>
> > The only thing valid in your mail is the comment on my decision on
> > building an argument on a kde-usability discussion. But it is nullfied
> > since it was approved by Aaron(a core hacker) and the Kicker maintainer.
>
> Incidentally, you failed to mention that you had contacted the maintainer
> at all. And while I'm all for usability improvements, because it's fairly
> obvious to me that we can use them, I don't think that changing the values
> of existing settings for existing application configurations is a usability
> improvement at all. Aaron should have committed a kconf_update script to go
> with the changing of the default value, but that can still be taken care of
> - and unless I'm mistaken, kconf_update should be able to handle this
> situation so that our users aren't surprised by things like this.
>
> > Since you don't know the whole story, just as Dawit, it's not a surprise
> > your comments are wrong.
>
> I am quite insulted by your lack of tact in dealing with others here, and
> I'm not surprised that you're finding friction considering your manner and
> attitude.

And this will go on and on. 
I was just about to write we should drop this before the thread blows but that 
was too late I guess. Anyway, there's so many misunderstandings and FUD in 
this thread so I would prefer if we just dropped it. It really is 
counterproductive anyway.
If you, Chris(or anyone else) wants to continue this particular topic I can be 
reached on private mail.

Technical aspects of the patch or anything else worth mentioning(such as the 
default value) is of course highly welcome.


Cheers,

			Frans