Re: [Gaim-devel] tabs

[Richard H. <rm...@ap...>]

Ethan Blanton <ebl...@cs...> writes:

> Interface change discussion is, of course, welcome on this list.  The
> sort of email which doesn't get a very good response is "I don't like
> X, make it how it used to be", or "Is there an option to make X how it
> used to be?".  A well thought out email presenting pros and cons might
> make some progress ... a knee-jerk reaction to change will not.  Users
> should keep in mind that we, as gaim developers, use gaim every day as
> well.  What might initially seem like the end of the world (come on
> people, it's a freaking IM client ... if it has something you don't
> like in CVS for a week, the world will NOT end) may in fact be
> something you decide you like if you just give it a chance for a few
> days.

Fair enough, but I don't see a lot of knee jerk reactions here.  I see
no discussion of any issues, as a matter of fact.

> It's very off-putting to have every single design change second- and
> third-guessed simply because a few (not by any means a majority!)
> users are so afraid of change and progress that they cannot handle the
> fact that, e.g., the tabs on their conversations are not optional for
> a _few days_.  The developers of gaim work very hard to ensure that
> they are, in fact, *improving* gaim.  Sometimes change is good.

Fair enough again.  I'm sure the developers are working very hard, and
I appreciate their work.  But where's this second and third guessing
going on?  It's not on this list.  If anything, the knee jerk
reactions have been on the other side of the fence.


> Take the new buddy list, for another example.  When it was first
> committed, people were like "oh, gah!  it's so huuuuge!  wah wah can i
> have an option?".  I know of at least a few people, however, that
> decided (in the two or three days, it wasn't that long!) they liked
> the bigger buddy list with icons and kept it even after the option to
> reduce it was readded.

Perhaps the discussion of the new buddy list was warranted, then.  It
did some good.  Just because some acted like they wanted the world,
doesn't mean that there wasn't room for discussion. You don't want
feedback from the users?  Are you going to treat all questions as
complaints, and all concerns as whining?

> I'm relatively new to this whole gaim development thing, so I came in
> just before 0.59 was frozen and 0.60 went under heavy rewrite.  I have
> seen in this past few months *countless* times where some feature X
> gets ripped out for rewrite, or is only partially reimplemented (or
> whatever), and people come literally flocking to #gaim (or, less
> often, this mailing list) begging to have this feature
> readded/removed/whatever so they can have the behavior they are used
> to back.  Within HOURS or MINUTES.  It's awfully hard to develop, make
> forward progress, and keep these people happy all at the same time.
> Thus you get short answers like "no, shut up" both here and in #gaim
> and in the SF forums.  If you're the 200th user to say "when are
> conversation tabs going to be optional?", you can expect a terse and
> perhaps somewhat unfriendly response.

Don't do IRC, so I won't comment on #gaim, but I don't see that
behavior on this list.  I don't know what has gone on in the past.
(Is this list archived anywhere?)

> I think it is also reasonable to expect people who wish to track gaim
> CVS to keep at least somewhat on top of the changes going in.  If
> something shows up that I didn't expect, I don't come crying to this
> list or IRC first thing ... I peruse the recent CVS logs to try and
> determine if it is intentional or a bug.  If it appears to be
> intentional, I give it a few hours to shake itself out before I start
> announcing that gaim has ended my life and career and exploded my
> monitor.  If it seems to be a bug, I attempt to figure out why or get
> a backtrace or take whatever action seems most appropriate.  Is it
> unreasonable to expect this out of users?  Not at all, if they're
> using gaim from CVS and not a released version.  As a matter of fact,
> if a user comes to #gaim and says "gaim is dumping core, but I don't
> know how to get a backtrace like the instructions say, can someone
> help me?", I'm sure that user would get more or less immediate help.

Gaim dumped core on me, or at least that is what STDERR said, along
with a request for a backtrace.  I couldn't find the core file to get
said backtrace, so I posted to this list. I was told "There's a reason
this is CVS.  The bugs will be fixed when we find fixes."


-- 
Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble.
                                --Bucky Katt