Using StyleSheets is bad WAS Re: Konqueror lineedit Bug

[Lubos Lunak]

On Tuesday 20 of November 2007, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007, you wrote:
> > A Dimarts 20 Novembre 2007, Aaron J. Seigo va escriure:
>
> first the work related part:
> > > and/or fixing things with 10 line patches, we're
> > > going to end up writing custom proxy styles for everything we want to
> > > do?
> >
> > It *IS* a 10 line patch, if you don't count the proxy that actually is
> > dumb code.
> >
> > So, can we have this patch in for KDE 4.0 so things actually work or
> > should we just pray for uncle TT to be good and fix it fast?
>
> ignoring the sarcasm in your email: sure, i'm fine with; can you please add
> a //FIXME in there to make it clear why this is like it is and what needs
> to happen to have it replaced?
>
> my concern is that we end up with these hacks all over the place in our
> code which makes it uglier and not as easy to maintain.

 As compared to the other option of not having any other option? Getting 
something fixed in Qt now or having a patch in qt-copy is not enough for 4.0; 
just yesterday I had to work around a problem I couldn't see but the user 
didn't use qt-copy and Qt just fell flat on its face because of it.

> the social / attitude part:
...
> > Even in the case they accept it to be a thing that should not happen
> > it'll be a wish which will probably make it be "fixed" on Qt 4.4, 4.5 or
> > never. That means KDE 4.x will have that bug until TrollTech decides to
> > fix this, and given the severity of the bug, i think this is totally
> > unacceptable.
>
> hm. see, i don't have that experience.

 Lucky you. But if you want to at least sense it, for example have a look at 
qt-copy patch #0180 (which is basically the mail I sent) and compare it with 
http://trolltech.com/developer/task-tracker/index_html?id=168283&method=entry . 
Can you find five differences (hints: the absence of the patch and the wrong 
abort marked as 'suggestion' are a good start)? And that was half a year ago. 
Is it really that strange the commit for the workaround had "I hate the 
idiotic useless qt-bugs@ blackhole." as the message?

 And don't try those "fix in the right place" or "push fix upstream" on me, I 
know them and try to do them, and I've tried that with Qt as well. I used to 
send several issues per month, usually with patches, and it was for a reason 
I first started qt-copy patches and then eventually learnt to consider Qt 
bugs reporting as a fire-and-forget thing. It's TT's turn now. You're saying 
things will be great? Fine, looking forward to it, but I'll believe it when I 
see Qt gets a real tracker that doesn't just let things disappear into the 
void or, if I'm really lucky, get me treated like some lamer who's just 
finished Qt tutorial yesterday.

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz