Breadcrumbs in Kickoff

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Tuesday 20 December 2011 00:33:20 4ernov wrote:
> I also can't see a reason to be so much against any suggestion on
> improve the situation with Back button itself. If it's a question of
> resources to implement e.g. a config option than, for example I can
> work at it. I think nobody wants to spoil new code or new navigation
> architecture or whatever so it would be done very carefully. It's
> unclear why you so against to approve such a work.
Up to now nobody gave a proper reason *why* we should add a back button. Just 
because we can is no reason, sorry.

Adding the back button requires a config option. There is clearly no need for 
such an option. How should normal users understand such an option? This is a 
severe case of featuritis and should not be found in an element of our primary 
user interface. This has been practice for Plasma for quite some time. Even 
the two existing config options are rather questionable. I added support for 
them in kickoff-qml but since then I have been thinking about dropping them 
again.

But config option is not the only problem. It's also about maintaining the 
code and being able to adjust it in future. Adding such an option would 
significantly increase the code size. I expect that the related file would 
gain at least 10 % more code and an increased complexity level by at least 
two. So maintaining cost significantly increase. And is it worth that for a 
feature nobody can argue why it is needed?

To me it is clear that the proper solution is the one Aaron suggested.

Thanks for understanding why we have to do what is the best compromise out of 
what is best for our user base and our code base.

Kind Regards
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20111220/bb18384e/attachment.sig>