changing KGraphicsUtils?

[Thomas Zander]

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 22:35:59 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> A number of people have expressed confusion/dissatisfaction over the
> implementation of blendColors that Thomas committed. In an attempt to
> address these comments, I would like to suggest supporting two methods
> for the moment; Zack's, and mine.

I have some issues with your patch
* we now have two similar methods that people have to choose from. We 
explicitly made the blendColors to be good enough for everyone to use by 
making it a very simple API and good enough implementation.
Adding a second next to that counters this result gained and therefor 
should be avoided.

* We are still / again doing design by committee. We really need usages of 
the API so we have a set of proper use cases.  I would (re) request that 
we wait for the codebase to actually gain those before we make decisions 
on how the method should react.  There just are too many different 
opinions on what is best.

* Your patch leaves in code of me/zack but you remove the copyright lines. 
That's [censored], please don't.

* Your patch has a comment like this one;
>+   // This isn't exactly fast :-(
It doesn't help anyone to state your opinion on it with a sad smiley and 
it certainly doesn't add any value to the method.  Its just being nasty 
at your fellow programmers. Please don't do that.

>  I would like to commit Monday if
> there are no (unresolved) issues at that time.
   
As I suggested elsewhere the haste seems unneeded and unwanted as we need 
to be using this code and not talking on mailinglists for another week, 
painting the next bikeshed a semi-transparant color.

So, I would really like it if we made sure we got some use cases and then 
we can see if things like having an alpha in the blended color is needed, 
wheather RGB blending is good enough and what method signature is best so 
we don't end up with 2 methods if we can do with one good one.

I know you really want to move and be active, but please give others the 
time they need, thanks! :)
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070531/39f20877/attachment.sig>