The stupid toolbox

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Wednesday 05 March 2008, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 04:36:30 JST, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > an example from the kickoff thread was the "people might get confused and
> > not get that the icon is associated with the entry" claim. holy not based
> > in reality, batman!
>
> This is (was?) based in reality. While I didn't respond to that thread, I
> have said in the past that I didn't like the highlighting. The reason I
> gave was that it wasn't immediately obvious whether an item had a submenu
> or not.

refering to the icon, not arrow. not that it matters ...

> > * i can ignore the point (and get called out for not listening)
> > * i can address the point (and get caught in useless, though sometimes
> > interesting, discussion)
> > * i can point out that the point is irrelevant (and get called out for
> > being dismissive)
>
> This viewpoint is the main reason why I haven't done anything in the last
> couple of months. I got the feeling that discussion is futile on just about
> any point.

i'm sorry you feel that way. there's been significant conversation and strides 
forward, but i agree that threads like this one are just deadly. the question 
i have is: what points are you interested in discussing?

it's pretty interesting that we can go ahead and make sweeping changes to 
things like how svg themes are handled and presented (most of which i had no 
involvement in the code, the ideas of which were not mine, etc) but people 
get totally mired in "toolbox?!"

> Of your three options above, I'd suggest taking number two but
> without starting with the presumption that the discussion will be useless.

it's honestly not where i started out, say, 6-10 months ago. this feeling on 
my part has come from dealing with topics like "toolbox?!" and "full width 
selection or bust!" i really feel that it has resulted in very little useful 
discussion and that what people really want to hear is "you're right, go 
ahead."

> > i'd like to not have to deal with no-win situations. so how do we meet
> > those two desires? i'm all ears and would really, really like a path to
> > solution.
>
> It's not an issue for applets as there's always playground for that. The
> main confusion is about libplasma and plasmaapp. There's no clear rules on
> what can be done by who and when.

of course, i was talking about discussion that, to put it kindly, amounts to 
little more than bikeshedding.

for development, there aren't really "rules": people work on what they'd like 
to. we have some lists of open tasks available on the wiki, there's lots of 
stuff in bugs.kde.org, there are things that we have discussed here on the 
list.

if you have questions about something, ask someone. or just start hacking. the 
common thread i find is that if someone is actually working on something or 
comes with an honestly open question, we get through the topic really fast 
and with results.

so .. what sort of rules or direction are you looking for?

> There's the review board now, but it's also unclear when it should and
> shouldn't be used.

i wrote an email on the fifth of february to clarify this. the title is "small 
clarification on review-board use =)" here is what i said there:

<quote>
due to some apparent non-clarity on the intended use of review-board (what, 
you can't read my mind yet?! ;), here are some thoughts on when to use it:

* when it's a non-trivial change you'd like feedback on
* and it touches libplasma, plasma or one of the "core" applets/engines[1]

you really don't need to (unless you really want to, of course =) when:

* it's your own applet/engine
* it's a trivial / obvious fix. we can continue to post-review those ones via 
the svn list quite easily.

[1] these are things like the menu or taskbar which are both tricky and mildly 
critical to things working well
</quote>

this was not the first time this has been said, either, but evidently this was 
missed by you, and perhaps others. so where i can put this that you will, and 
others, will find it?

> Perhaps it would be better if everyone used it for 
> everything until that distinction can be made?

i don't think that's really necessary. the distinction is, imho, pretty much 
up to common sense.

> That would at least give 
> people a chance to question you on changes that you view as trivial and
> might allow less insightful people to better understand your decisions...

anytime you aren't sure about something, throw it up on r-b.  as you become 
more sure of things, that'll probably happen less often for the "trivial" 
things.

the best part of r-b is that more people, other than me, are actually 
reviewing patches these days.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/panel-devel/attachments/20080305/23c9f946/attachment-0001.pgp