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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Kspread row limit
From:       Boudewijn Rempt <boud () valdyas ! org>
Date:       2009-12-29 17:30:52
Message-ID: 200912291830.53085.boud () valdyas ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Thomas Zander wrote:
> Yes, you think its not?

Yes, I think it's not. You gave your opinion. What you have to learn is not 
replying to your stuff doesn't mean agreement.

> I mean, isn't it fair to say there is agreement if nobody objects or raises
>  an issue?

No, it isn't. Nobody agreed either, for one thing. For another, people might 
have recognized that you were calling for a community decision here, but 
instead just thought that you were giving your personal opinion. For a third 
(and this is true for me) people might have refrained from jumping in because 
they didn't want to get in yet another "discussion" with you. And I know at 
least one other person did disagree with you, but not to the point where they 
wanted to get into a discussion with you.

> Reading your email I'm not sure if you disagree with the assertion or not..
> Do you?

I think any attempt to remove limitations in our software is praiseworthy. 
Even if those attempts are caused by trying to be better than the opposition. 
Any attempt to keep to the status quo with some vague "No user cares about 
that." may actually be too silly to reply to.

So, I agree there's no hurry. I think it is dumb to insist that the current 
limitations are ok and to resist improvements.

> >  -- perhaps because nobody ever posted anything else in this
> >  thread.
> 
> I think thats a good start, indeed. Again, if nobody says its a problem,
>  I'd say there is consensus its 'good enough'.
> Don't you agree? Am I missing something obvious?

I do not agree. Yes, you are missing something obvious: a rather rude put down 
to a mail from someone not inside the koffice core community which doesn't get 
any follow-up is not the same as a community decision. No decisions were made: 
you gave your personal opinion and nobody thought your opinion important 
enough to reply to. That doesn't make for a community decision.

> As we are currently out of a kspread maintainer and all the koffice guys
>  are chipping in on getting bugs fixed and stuff running who are you
>  thinking about? I mean, this thread only had my reply, not that I claim
>  maintainership, far from it, but who are you thinking about if you say
>  "people who are actually working on kspread"?

If there is no maintainer right now, no decision can be made. If someone steps 
up to do the work to lift these limitations, he or she should not be stopped.

The big issue here is, of course, that nobody has tried to get Hendrik to 
continue his experiments: he had already taken obstacles that most would-be 
contributors never manage, like getting the code to compile and changing 
things in it.

> >  I want to note two things: having artificial limits is silly, no
> >  matter what other applications do. If we can support more, that would be
> >  great, users do care about the capabilities of their applications.
> 
> Would you be so kind and let us know which of these users think we don't
> have enough columns?

There is no 'us' here, just a 'you'. And no, I would not be so kind as to 
spend a whole lot of time combing the web for complaints about limitations in 
spreadsheet dimensions just to prolong this discussion. I merely want to make 
it clear that there is no "agreement in koffice" on this point.

So, in short, please refrain in the future from giving people the impression 
that there has been a community decision not to extend kspread's row limits if 
that would become possible. You only discourage people with that. Don't 
discourage people to make our software better, please.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]