[Bug 95820] Hidden panels collide at corners of screen

[Aaron Seigo]

so now you take to the kde-quality email list? *shakes head* whatever...

apologies to everyone else on this list in advance for the following waste of 
your bandwidth and time. if i were you, i'd just skip this thread entirely.

On December 28, 2004 15:28, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> > now, as for #3, yes, you can already manually configure it to not
> > overlap as long as you don't set it to "expand to fill contents". i
> > assumed you wanted something else.
>
> This is NOT possible with a top left panel!

well, by definition, yes. "you can configure it properly if you configure it 
properly". when / if the panels become freely positionable then you'll have 
all the flexibility in the world. this is a wishlist item already, and will 
likely eventually occur, but not for the reason of your bug report.

> There is a VERY simple question here.

and i thought i provided a very simple answer. you disagreed, which is fine, 
and the correct way to go about it is to post a follow up comment, not reopen 
it.

> unhide or the second one.  You are saying that it should be the second
> one without any argument to support your position.

i have provided reasons, but you seem to be resilient to things you don't want 
to hear.

> > as for #1, what if they actually WANT to unhide the OTHER panel? now
> > they'd have to re-hide the one they accidently unhid and select that
> > other panel.
>
> Perhaps you don't understand that I am NOT talking about using the
> hide/unhide buttons, I am talking about unhidding by moving the mouse to
> the edge of the screen.

no, i understood the bug report quite well ...

> > so these fixes optimize it for YOUR behaviour,
>
> How can you be so arrogant?

easy. i type and the words appear on the screen. ;-P (that was a joke)

seriously though, this is isn't arrogance, it's just calling it as it is. you 
want it optimized for your usage patterns and that's not a good enough reason 
in and of itself to change anything.

> > but YOU aren't the only user of kicker. as the maintainer i sort of
> > have to take into consideration the over all usage of the program.
>
> Yes, and that gets us back to the question of which one should be on
> top.  I think that we have it wrong and it should be the opposite.  I
> feel that this would be best for ALL users.

and i don't. go prove me wrong by engaging in a study of usage patterns on 
this, which is to say: observe a number of users who use such a configuration 
and see how it goes. otherwise, this issue is dead.

> I did NOT repoen the bug, I changed it to a WishList.

*sigh* this is still reopening it.

> If you want to discourage people from participating in the KDE project,
> you are very good at it.

my goal is to discourage people from wasting my time. it shouldn't be a 
difficult concept to master, this "don't reopen bugs" thing, but it seems to 
be an elusive lesson for some. you may (or may not) notice that i have a LOT 
of patience for some people, especially those i don't know and doubly so for 
those who are constructive workmates. you may also note that i have very 
little patience with others, primarily those who i know what to expect. your 
email here simply reinforces my opinion of you.
 
> Please be sure that you understand this.  It is your 'presumptuous
> claims' about my suggestions that makes your attitude 'arrogance'.  If

you mistake "annoyed" for "arrogant".

if i was being arrogant i'd insult you and not bother replying further. but 
you see, i'm just *annoyed* for having my time wasted by you. again. i don't 
find your behaviour very respectful of my time, and i find your attitude 
galling.

> engineers to this all the time.  But, you have dismissed what I said
> without even taking the time to understand it.
>
> It appears to me that you made your decision to close the bug first and
> then tried to come up with reasons second.  This is (if true) not good
> critical thinking -- but it is common human behavior.

er, no. i considered the bug, closed it because i decided it was a WONTFIX, 
and you decided to veto that decision (!). 

prior to deciding on how to handle the bug, i changed my kicker config to see 
the problem you were reporting first hand and played with it for some minutes 
until i felt i had a good idea of the issue.

i read your report through completely before, during AND after that 
experimentation. that's 3 times i read it.

you can believe that i don't understand the bug report if you wish or that i 
didn't try, or whatever else makes you feel happy. i've come to a decision 
and until there's further evidence, that's the decision that will remain.

> In any case, you should have contacted me by private mail rather than
> posting this on BugZilla.

sorry, i do my bug handling on bugzilla. of course, the irony here is that you 
posted this to a public mailing list ;-)

> I also note that this *is* also MY bug since I am the reporter.  The
> reporter has the right to reopen a bug.

you have the right to reopen the bug if it gets marked as FIXED but it 
regresses or it isn't completely fixed, for instance. that's completely 
different than what you did, however. it is not within the purview of the 
reporter to reopen WONTFIX, INVALID, etc.

> So, I presume that if I reassign the WISHLIST item to myself that I will
> be within my right to reopen it. 

no, because that would be the same as you re-opening it. this is not a 
bureaucracy, it's supposed to be a practical tool.

> Why didn't you reassign it to me rather than closing it??

because, as the maintainer of the program in question, i made a decision that 
i feel is appropriate and until you present some rational that changes things 
that decision stands. i am not beholden to agree with you just because you 
feel a certain way. if that was how development worked, it wouldn't work at 
all.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
Society is Geometric
-------------- 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-quality/attachments/20041228/5b2efeae/attachment.pgp