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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: KDE4: missing features from KDE3
From:       Andreas Pakulat <apaku () gmx ! de>
Date:       2009-08-05 7:20:08
Message-ID: 20090805072008.GB20007 () trinity ! apaku ! dnsalias ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 05.08.09 06:32:58, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:21:56 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 04.08.09 20:23:46, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > > There must be a better way of tagging
> > > things.  In many cases we probably need a tag that conveys the meaning
> > > that it would break other things.  Something on the lines of
> > > SystemBreaker.  In other cases just changing the tag to Wish should be
> > > sufficient.
> >
> > Well, we're talking about feature requests, which are already tagged as
> > wish. So closing it as wish won't really help here I think.
> >
> Actually, I was thinking of certain very annoying users who take the view that 
> a kde 3 feature they used being no longer available, or being only available 
> by some other method, that's a bug not a wish.  They will report it as a bug.  
> If it's not viable, for any reason, then it has to be closed with WONTFIX or 
> whatever, but a short reason should be given.  If it's a genuine missing 
> feature that will probably appear at a later date, then it has to be re-tagged 
> as a wish.  Again it would probably help if a short note, such as 'working on 
> it', or 'to be addressed' where it's not possible to guess time-scale, were 
> appended.

Yeah, thats what usually happens when I go over our bugreports. I don't
think we (in KDevelop) had the problem yet to close a report as wontfix
that asked for something which existed in KDevelop3. But if that ever
happens, I'll probably first change it to wish and then close it as
wontfix.

> > So, would "WONTIMPLEMENT" help? 
> 
> Not really.  We could sub-divide them by the kind of reason, but that just 
> makes extra work.  Probably we have to keep WONTFIX, but ensure that we always 
> give a reason.  If the reporter argues, the developer should read it - if it 
> makes a valid point, answer, otherwise ignore it.  His job has been done.

Completely agree on this.

> > As Aaron already said, bugzilla isn't
> > quite the right tool to do feature requests anyway. The fact that a
> > feature request is nothing but an ordinary bugreport with the lowest
> > severity possible already indicates that.
> >
> It doesn't have to be, though, does it?  At the moment so many wishes or kde3-
> missing-features are being reported as bugs.  If they were clearly separated 
> out, then bug-squashing and feature-developing are more clearly divided as 
> well.  I would have thought that getting this more accurate would be a help to 
> developers, rather than a hindrance.  The only snag I see is man-power, but a 
> determined effort at a pre-agreed time to deal with backlog could help.

Well, you could do that without too many changes (except finding those
reports), by simply adding a keyword on the bugreport. Then its easy to
create a list of all bugreports from a component that are
KDE3-missing-features.
 
> > I think this is also a social problem, people are getting used to be
> > able to shout, rant and moan on the net without ever being held
> > responsible for the possible damage they do with that.
> >
> I totally agree.  In general terms people no longer are as considerate of each 
> other as they used to be, and when you throw in the anonymity of the net, you 
> can say anything without ever being really held to account.  You can simply 
> cease to exist and start again as a new persona when the going gets too hot.  
> This is not going to change, so again, we have to develop strategies for 
> coping.

My personal strategy goes into the same direction as what you're saying
a couple of threads "above": Try to talk to such people once or twice,
then just send their communication to /dev/null.

> > There's a difference between seeing some feature as "actually useful"
> > and the motivation to work on it because one wants to actually use it.
> > For example, I totally understand why the above mentioned feature is
> > useful, but I don't have the slightest motivation to work on it myself,
> > because the only thing I use the menu for sending the machine into
> > suspend.
> >
> This I can understand.  However, I'm sure that you don't go through life never 
> doing anything that isn't entirely for yourself.

:) Yes, I did do that in the past and will do it in the near future too.
I was more talking about priorities, not so much about "never" doing it
- at least if its the part of KDE that I'm interested in.

Andreas

-- 
Reply hazy, ask again later.
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]