[kde-guidelines] bugs.kde.org for guidelines

[Frans Englich]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 08:20, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 01:29:41AM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 September 2004 04:35, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 22 September 2004 08:48, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > > Again, what have the GNOME folks done wrong? In what way do they not
> > > > gain from what I described, and how would these 67 requests fit into
> > > > a Wiki or TODO file?
> > > >
> > > > Now, systematically and thoroughly, explain to me why I am wrong.
> > >
> > > it's a bit odd to have bugs open on content that doesn't exist.
> >
> > Why?
>
> I thought that to be obvious;
> Bugreports (and thus bug.kde.org) are directed toward existing
> functionality and frameworks.  The developers never look at the bugs
> section for a piece of technology they are going to write anew.  However
> much you want them; they are not going to do it.

I'm not suggesting it any longer, so save your breath. But here's technical 
mistakes being done. I have used GNOME's bug database, which have 67 open bug 
reports by all different kinds of people, as example, to justify points like 
the one you oppose. It's quite a good argument -- an exact confirmation of 
what I argue(multiple developers file BRs), from a case which is very similar 
to us. If you still find this discussion fun, that's a great argument to 
start trying to knock down.

>
> > Have you never scribbled down notes about something you are to write, or
> > planned a major piece of code on paper?
>
> What a very wierd statement; you are perfectly aware that scribbling
> something down is a very personal thing, Its in a language that probably
> nobody can read but the scribbler (and not the writer 2 weeks later).

Expand your horizon then; scribbling down in the sense that others understand 
it. Wouldn't make much use otherwise. If it was only for personal use it 
wouldn't be used, of course. Read this one, and tell me what you don't 
understand:
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89362

And still, as stated previously, tell me what the GNOME folks have done wrong; 
they have 67 open bugs reported by different people and that works just fine. 
In what way have they fooled themselves? Or explain why it's not reasonable 
to compare. In other words, feel of course free to say that "you don't seem 
to have that experience" [about this subject], but for my curiosity -- 
explain why the gnome folks are that inexperienced too.

IIRC, I did the first a authoritative comment:

"I didn't markup 400 table entries because I find it fun, nor only for the 
reason that Docbook looks pretty. I don't know about you, but it horrifies me 
to arrange such a document, which is to be of an amazing detailness, in the 
form of TODOs and bookmarks to threads which are to be waded for their 
relevant content."

But that doesn't hinder you from follow my footsteps. 1-1. But you had the 
opportunity there..

Let's flip the coin: So let's say we first file bug reports when we have 
content, as Aaron suggested(for him it ticked through it could be good at 
some point, at least). So when is it ok to file bug reports? When 1.0 is 
released? When a draft is worked on? How much non-related content must be 
created before a statement that something unrelated needs work, becomes true 
and useful? :)

Don't you got anything better to do? KDE is endlessly filled of code and 
projects which needs to be written and started, but you guys fight bug 
reports like they were the end of the world. I do know about you, but I would 
certainly not waste that much time on a thing like this.

And don't worry, I can give you the chill pill again; I won't go break KDE 
with my bug reports.


Come on, why don't we go for another round? I bet you all got spicy things to 
say.


:)

			Frans