[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bugs-dist
Subject:    [Bug 154535] ability to remove zoom in/out tool like any other applet
From:       Tobias <flabbergasted () gmx ! de>
Date:       2008-07-09 7:45:27
Message-ID: 20080709074527.21760.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154535         




------- Additional Comments From flabbergasted gmx de  2008-07-09 09:45 -------
Aaron: Actually I wanted to stay out of that since there's already enough harm done \
here. Please know that I deeply respect your work and am far from wanting to attack \
you. But I need to point out to you to reconsider if you should maybe rethink \
something. You said in your latest reply:

***
otherwise, just describe your paint point (what you expected, what actually happened, \
the difference, etc). leave out the editorials and don't offer suggestions on how to \
                code your preferred solution.
***

Actually, I think this is exactly what the submitter of this bug did. But by saying \
"this is intentional" because it is intentional for the *default* containment, you \
took the discussion to the code architecture level. If you would just have said "this \
will be configurable in 4.2 by the means of changing the desktop containment but \
won't go away for the default containment because it is part of what it is all about" \
and left the report open I doubt that there would have been as much controversy \
around this. Maybe I'm wrong about this. But I feel the main point of the arguments \
were that people felt you were telling them that there will be no choice for them \
when many of us believe that KDE is all about choice. So maybe we should all learn \
from this bug: we, the submitters that we should trust in the coders' vision when \
they say something is intensional and you, the coder, that if you expect us to \
describe problems on a non-architecture level you should also explain solutions on a \
non-architecture level (and I believe on a non-architecture level this bug is NOT a \
WONTFIX). Ok, sorry for using this again for communication but I just had to add \
this. All the best, Tobias


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]