From kde-core-devel  Sun Sep 16 11:13:47 2007
From: Pino Toscano <toscano.pino () tiscali ! it>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:13:47 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Temporary KColorScheme change - hard-code some state colors
Message-Id: <200709161313.51806.toscano.pino () tiscali ! it>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=118994131728851
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart3111355.6Q6KlOnXzo"

--nextPart3111355.6Q6KlOnXzo
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Alle domenica 16 settembre 2007, Jos Poortvliet ha scritto:
> Let me propose to let the artists and usability people figure this
> out. Let matthew and Pinheiro play.

=2E.. in a separate branch, please.
(Oh btw, since when kdelibs is becoming a playground area?)

> If we don't like the END RESULT (and please stop stop stop bitching about
> the current look, as it's simply NOT meant to look that way) it will SIMP=
LY
> be a matter of changing a DEFAULT color scheme setting.

And please please please please stop breaking the workflow (and the eyes) o=
f=20
the developers who _wants_ to work on kde4.

> Don't tell me that's a huge issue, stability-wise, cuz I don't believe th=
at.

It seems you didn't read my last email, did you? Please tell me how am I=20
supposed to TEST an application with similar color problems? Will you do th=
at=20
for me? Or Matthew? I can't, sorry.

> Let them make it how it's supposed to look. Give em time until at
> least the first RC. If the community (eg all of us) then decide it
> sucks, flashes, is bad for performance etcetera, we turn it off. No
> changing code, just a default setting.

So, all the emails of people complaining in this thread are=20
considered "nothing"? We developers are part of the community as well, and=
=20
many people are complaining, and it seems more than the ones actually likin=
g=20
or not really distrurbed by the effect.
Are you going to continue ignoring that?

> Yes, they maybe should've done it in a seperate branch. But let's stop
> talking about past mistakes, OK? and let them do their job,

Again, in a _separate_ branch.

> and let us do ours.

I can't do mine in these conditions, sorry. (And I'm not the only one.)

=2D-=20
Pino Toscano

--nextPart3111355.6Q6KlOnXzo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBG7Q/vTNH2piB/L3oRApVsAKCXbvdccMcDmrb/VyOlWQSpp3kYMwCbB8dg
oo0RudVazeCG8EUP3Vyuz4I=
=YOTA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3111355.6Q6KlOnXzo--