[kde-edu]: Report Bug action

[Inge Wallin]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 05.48, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 18:46, Joshua Keel wrote:
> > Honestly, Inge, I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this.
> > "It doesn't compile" is an overstatement of the actual situation. It DOES
> > compile now that you fixed the problem. So someone (maybe me) made an
> > error when they were changing a string. So Kanagram didn't compile until
> > you noticed it and fixed it. I don't understand why that's surprising or
> > outrageous. kdebase from branches/KDE/3.5 doesn't compile for me right
> > now, but I'm not complaining and saying it should be removed from KDE. I
> > really don't see it as a big deal, as I know it's alpha-quality code.
>
> I agree, a one-line compile problem is not a big deal.  At all.

Well, I just reacted because it was newly incorporated into kdeedu.  At the 
time it gave me the impression that the coding was very sloppy.  It didn't 
help that I on just a few lines after that got a warning that showed me a 
short loop that had to be explained in order to make it understandable. And 
it definitely didn't help that Albert waved me and annma off with a "not a 
problem" when we pointed out this piece of code that needed improvement.

After that, we got a perfectly good explanation of why the code didn't compile 
(the -DQT_SOMETHING_OR_OTHER in kdeedu, but not in kdereview) so I am 
satisfied on that account.  However, I still feel that code that is so 
difficult to read that you need a separate explanation of a 10 line loop has 
problems.  And there isn't even a comment that clarifies the issue! It looks 
wrong and that was what I was pointing out.

> > I'm not criticizing annma, or you, or anybody else. I'm just saying that
> > reporting that "x doesn't work" is not the kind of bug report devs can
> > use.
>
> That's true, but it's just as easy (and more productive) to simply ask for
> claraification or more information, rather than criticize the person's BR
> skills.  That's not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just trying to
> get us back on track here.

Right. I agree, and let's that be the end of it.

> > I'm beginning to feel like people don't want Kanagram in kdeedu for some
> > reason. This is ridiculous. It's quite complete and stable, and it's
> > better than KMessedWords in every way. Anyone who doesn't see that just
> > isn't looking very hard. I don't understand why such a good application
> > is being complained about so much, when we have applications of lesser
> > quality in kdeedu already (think KMessedWords). I don't mind "bug
> > reports," but the things I'm reading seem much more like complaints than
> > bug reports from people who want Kanagram to succeed.

Sorry, if that was the way it sounded.  I have nothing in principle against 
KAnagram.  It's just that my first impression was so bad (no compile, a 
crash, brush-off of people reporting problems (in a good or bad way)). I hope 
that you understand that if I didn't want it to succeed, I wouldn't have 
fixed the bug. :-)

> You shouldn't feel this way.  Kanagram is already a good program with a
> wonderful kid-firendly UI, and is certainly a valuable addition to kdeedu
> (IMHO).  My comments about the missing bug report tool were meant to be
> constructive, and I hope you take them that way.
>
> For the most part, I have found kdeedu to be a group in which people are
> happy to help one another, and to give and accept feedback and criticism
> about the apps in a cooperative spirit, and that has been really great.  I
> sincerely hope we can all take a breath, and get back to that ASAP.

What you said!

	-Inge

-- 
Inge Wallin               | Thus spake the master programmer:               |
                          |      "After three days without programming,     |
inge at lysator.liu.se       |       life becomes meaningless."                |
                          | Geoffrey James: The Tao of Programming.         |