From: cmr <cmr...@uf...> - 2002-12-22 04:24:47
Attachments:
gaim_away_box.patch
|
The attached patch, against current CVS, implements an option to not create the away message box. Myself and others find this box annoying and it really serves no purpose (when away message queuing is turned off). I also think it's bad UI. Even though I despise the box, I did make it an option in Away preferences. Since the away message queue is dependent on the away box, its option is correctly grayed-out and disabled when the away message box is not displayed. I tested this with various combinations of all the other options. Everything seems to work perfectly. Please apply. Chris Rivera |
From: Chris R. <cmr...@uf...> - 2002-12-24 03:46:55
Attachments:
gaim_away_box.patch
|
The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has been updated and diffed against current CVS. I tested this with various combinations of all the other options. Everything is working good. Please apply this to CVS. Chris Rivera |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 05:28:36
|
On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: > The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message > box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has > been updated and diffed against current CVS. If the significance of this monumental patch is not clear, let me make it: the existence of the human race depends on it. This away message box is a nuisance. I suspect it was just copied from AIM. Why does the current away message warrant its own dialog box? I just picked it, I know what it is! The annoyance grows with the new "notifier icon" support in gaim CVS. This is a great feature which is unfortunately ruined by the arbitrary away dialog which does not go away. In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... Robert Love |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 05:46:06
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:30:31AM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: > > > The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message > > box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has > > been updated and diffed against current CVS. > > If the significance of this monumental patch is not clear, let me make > it: the existence of the human race depends on it. > > This away message box is a nuisance. I suspect it was just copied from > AIM. Why does the current away message warrant its own dialog box? I > just picked it, I know what it is! > > The annoyance grows with the new "notifier icon" support in gaim CVS. > This is a great feature which is unfortunately ruined by the arbitrary > away dialog which does not go away. > > In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the > away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we have deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog can go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: John B. S. <sil...@us...> - 2002-12-24 06:06:52
|
On Tuesday 24 December 2002 06:46 am, Luke Schierer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:30:31AM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: [snip] > > If the significance of this monumental patch is not clear, let me mak= e > > it: the existence of the human race depends on it. > > > > This away message box is a nuisance. I suspect it was just copied fr= om > > AIM. Why does the current away message warrant its own dialog box? = I > > just picked it, I know what it is! > > > > The annoyance grows with the new "notifier icon" support in gaim CVS. > > This is a great feature which is unfortunately ruined by the arbitrar= y > > away dialog which does not go away. > > > > In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled = the > > away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... > > I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and > when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently > scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the > away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for > his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we hav= e > deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as > well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog ca= n > go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what > away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. > luke For now, I am not using the docket (using KDE <3.1), and have no other wa= y of=20 knowing whether or not I am away. I am relying on the away message dialo= g=20 box to let me know that I am away. On this note, I partly wish that it w= ould=20 be represented in Kicker as a window, since it is currently some kind of=20 child of the blist, such that I must minimize all apps to see my away dia= log. =20 However I realize that this would add yet another task to Kicker, so perh= aps=20 that is undesireable. I've played with the docklet, and I like it, but u= ntil=20 next month, I probably won't be using it. On the other hand, this is an option, which would presumably be disabled = by=20 default (thus showing the Away window), which I don't think is that bad. = But=20 I don't think it's all that critical either. I'd also point out that thi= s=20 could have been put in the Tracker (http://gaim.sf.net/patches.php), rath= er=20 than filling everyone's mailboxes with it (the patch, not the e-mail). /me steps down from soap box, John Silvestri |
From: Jacob V. <jv...@do...> - 2002-12-24 07:07:36
|
This patch gives people the option to remove the away box, it doesnt remove it all together. Im running it and it works great. If this patch isnt going to be added then I plead with Chris Rivera to keep the patch current. Thanks Jacob Visser On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 16:46, Luke Schierer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:30:31AM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: > > > > > The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message > > > box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has > > > been updated and diffed against current CVS. > > > > If the significance of this monumental patch is not clear, let me make > > it: the existence of the human race depends on it. > > > > This away message box is a nuisance. I suspect it was just copied from > > AIM. Why does the current away message warrant its own dialog box? I > > just picked it, I know what it is! > > > > The annoyance grows with the new "notifier icon" support in gaim CVS. > > This is a great feature which is unfortunately ruined by the arbitrary > > away dialog which does not go away. > > > > In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the > > away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... > > I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and > when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently > scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the > away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for > his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we have > deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as > well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog can > go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what > away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. > luke > > -- > -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Gaim-devel mailing list > Gai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel > |
From: Christian H. <ch...@gn...> - 2002-12-24 07:29:00
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Jacob Visser wrote: > This patch gives people the option to remove the away box, it doesnt > remove it all together. Im running it and it works great. If this > patch isnt going to be added then I plead with Chris Rivera to keep the > patch current. > > Thanks > > Jacob Visser I may as well throw my two cents in.. I prefer to have an away dialog... except I don't like the dialog aspect. Really, what I would like to see is a vertically split buddy list window, which is only split when away. When away, the bottom half (maybe right above the toolbar) would contain the gtkimhtml showing the away message. You could then resize it or keep it or whatever you wish. It would let you see your away message, return from away, and you could hide it. The main reason I would prefer this is because I have 16 virtual desktops. Yes, excessive, but I use most of them ;) I tend to lose the away window and have a tough time finding it. If it were attached to the buddy list window, it would be so much easier to return from away with one click. Christian -- Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project ch...@gn... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/ There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity. -- Gene Wolfe |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 13:18:13
|
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:28:56PM -0800, Christian Hammond wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Jacob Visser wrote: > > This patch gives people the option to remove the away box, it doesnt > > remove it all together. Im running it and it works great. If this > > patch isnt going to be added then I plead with Chris Rivera to keep the > > patch current. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jacob Visser > > I may as well throw my two cents in.. > > I prefer to have an away dialog... except I don't like the dialog > aspect. Really, what I would like to see is a vertically split buddy > list window, which is only split when away. When away, the bottom half > (maybe right above the toolbar) would contain the gtkimhtml showing > the away message. You could then resize it or keep it or whatever you > wish. It would let you see your away message, return from away, and > you could hide it. > > The main reason I would prefer this is because I have 16 virtual > desktops. Yes, excessive, but I use most of them ;) I tend to lose the > away window and have a tough time finding it. If it were attached to > the buddy list window, it would be so much easier to return from away > with one click. yes, i only have 5-6 desktops at any given time, but i used to loose the away message at times also before i restricted all things gaim to the one desktop. Your idea for the away message sounds good. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 13:16:02
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Jacob Visser wrote: > This patch gives people the option to remove the away box, it doesnt > remove it all together. Im running it and it works great. If this > patch isnt going to be added then I plead with Chris Rivera to keep the > patch current. I am only allowed to commit bug fixes. Sean or Rob will have to commit this. My reply was along the ideas of John Silvestri, that while this might be a nice option, it is HARDLY as critical as the one post made it out to be. I was pointing out that rather than there being "no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the away queue," that the box is both desireable and necessary for many users for at least the time being. luke > > Thanks > > Jacob Visser > > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 16:46, Luke Schierer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:30:31AM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: > > > > > > > The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message > > > > box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has > > > > been updated and diffed against current CVS. > > > > > > If the significance of this monumental patch is not clear, let me make > > > it: the existence of the human race depends on it. > > > > > > This away message box is a nuisance. I suspect it was just copied from > > > AIM. Why does the current away message warrant its own dialog box? I > > > just picked it, I know what it is! > > > > > > The annoyance grows with the new "notifier icon" support in gaim CVS. > > > This is a great feature which is unfortunately ruined by the arbitrary > > > away dialog which does not go away. > > > > > > In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the > > > away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... > > > > I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and > > when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently > > scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the > > away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for > > his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we have > > deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as > > well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog can > > go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what > > away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. > > luke > > > > -- > > -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Gaim-devel mailing list > > Gai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel > > > > -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 16:31:02
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 00:46, Luke Schierer wrote: > I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and > when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently > scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the > away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for > his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we have > deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as > well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog can > go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what > away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. Well, Chris made it an option, so none of these are valid excuses to me. I do agree 100% there is a need for a status system but I am not sure that one requires the other. In other words, this can be merged now and the status system limit. If you use the docklet applet, then you know you are away already. Or you can add yourself to your buddy list. Anything is worth this dumb box popping up. The box really is dumb. It is terrible UI. With all the stress GNOME is giving these days to sane design, this away dialog definitely should (at least optionally) go. Please, maintainers? :) Robert Love |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2002-12-24 16:56:37
|
Robert Love spake unto us the following wisdom: > The box really is dumb. It is terrible UI. With all the stress GNOME > is giving these days to sane design, this away dialog definitely should > (at least optionally) go. I'm not sure I like the tactic of "you guys suck, your UI sucks, here apply this and you'll suck less" for getting patches put in. 'patch -p0 < patchfile' Ethan --=20 And if I claim to be a wise man / it surely means that I don't know. -- Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son" |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 17:03:54
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 11:55, Ethan Blanton wrote: > I'm not sure I like the tactic of "you guys suck, your UI sucks, here > apply this and you'll suck less" for getting patches put in. I do not think that is my approach at all. I am sorry if I came off that way. Gaim is a wonderful program, but it is not infallible either. To improve - to evolve - Gaim's weaknesses need to be discovered and fixed. I think Chris's patch is an excellent step in the right direction, as it fixes something that is a real issue. Gaim's UI does not suck - its great, modulo this dialog box. Robert Love |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 19:11:47
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:04:58PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 11:55, Ethan Blanton wrote: > > > I'm not sure I like the tactic of "you guys suck, your UI sucks, here > > apply this and you'll suck less" for getting patches put in. > > I do not think that is my approach at all. I am sorry if I came off > that way. > > Gaim is a wonderful program, but it is not infallible either. To > improve - to evolve - Gaim's weaknesses need to be discovered and fixed. > > I think Chris's patch is an excellent step in the right direction, as it > fixes something that is a real issue. Gaim's UI does not suck - its > great, modulo this dialog box. there are many issues with gaim's ui, both the gtk1.2 one and what we currently have in cvs. the modal dialogs we have in cvs right now for instance are a serious inconvience that result from (in my opinion a not very careful) one reading of the gnome hig. personally i think this away dialog is a very minor issue at best, its the idea of "this must be merged now" that i got reading a number of these messages that have set me off in a number of my replies. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 19:21:33
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 14:11, Luke Schierer wrote: > personally i think this away dialog is a very minor issue at best, its > the idea of "this must be merged now" that i got reading a number of > these messages that have set me off in a number of my replies. One of the nice things about open source is priorities are set by the users. Just because more important things need to be done has no bearing on this patch - which is already written - being merged. Robert Love |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 21:01:08
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 02:23:14PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 14:11, Luke Schierer wrote: > > > personally i think this away dialog is a very minor issue at best, its > > the idea of "this must be merged now" that i got reading a number of > > these messages that have set me off in a number of my replies. > > One of the nice things about open source is priorities are set by the > users. Just because more important things need to be done has no > bearing on this patch - which is already written - being merged. um... no. priorities are set by developers. we are volunteers. we are not paid to work on gaim, we are not paid to please you. we work on gaim because there are things in gaim we want. the things we have problems with, the features we want added, the bugs we hit, those are the things that have priority. anything other features that make it in, any bugs that we fix that we don't expirience happen not because of any obligation to users but because we CHOOSE to be nice. with open source you have the ability to write your own patches, and as importantly, to APPLY YOUR OWN PATCHES. _that_ is the only way in which non-developers have any control over the contents of the programs. any additional control a project may choose to give users is not an inherent part of open source, but a decision by developers to reliquish control over their own free time, a decision that can at any time be revoked. look at the typical decription of why things happen in open source: things happen because people have an itch they want scratched, and so they scratch it themselves, they code it themselves. the first step has happened here: someone has provided a patch. but look at the xemacs/emacs situation, the way debian provides qmail, the differences between vi and vim, the differences between nano and pico. you can see it over and over again. people disagree with developers, do the developers give in because the users drive the process? no. the users become developers because developers drive the process. </rant> luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 21:13:13
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 16:00, Luke Schierer wrote: > um... no. > [snip] You need to relax. I maintain multiple projects - I know how things work. All I meant was the interests of individual users are unique, so when someone goes "I should make this box an option" he could do so regardless of other people's priorities. And then the maintainers can say "hey, sane patch and good idea" and apply it, even if they and others are working on other things. In no way did I mean to nullify the power of the maintainers, merely point out that work can occur tangential to other development and the maintainers can recognize it. I would like to end this thread, now. Please enjoy the holidays. Robert Love |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2002-12-24 21:29:25
|
Robert Love spake unto us the following wisdom: > I would like to end this thread, now. Please enjoy the holidays. I agree. I think it's gotten out of proportion, which may be partially my fault. In the meantime, I suggest that those who want this patch apply it manually ... after the Holidays when developers with commit privileges get some free time, maybe it'll go in and that will no longer be necessary. Happy holidays, everyone. :-) Ethan --=20 And if I claim to be a wise man / it surely means that I don't know. -- Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son" |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 19:09:19
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 11:33:02AM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 00:46, Luke Schierer wrote: > > > I disagree. for those of us not using the docklet, and between now and > > when a better status management method is worked into gaim (currently > > scheduled for 0.61, after the whole mess of moving to gtk2 is over, the > > away message dialog is the sole way for a user to be able to tell for > > his/her self that [s]he is away. as such, it is necessary. after we have > > deryni's status menu worked in and derjohan's status icons probly as > > well, then i will be more inclined to agree that the separate dialog can > > go. even then though, having it lets you know, 12 hours latter, what > > away message you selected, and so it is still not w/out purpose. > > Well, Chris made it an option, so none of these are valid excuses to me. As i said in a previous post, these comments are not directed towards rejecting the patch. they are directed towards explaining why it is not a priority. i have niether the authority to accept or commit a patch adding an option like this. > > I do agree 100% there is a need for a status system but I am not sure > that one requires the other. In other words, this can be merged now and > the status system limit. indeed. > > If you use the docklet applet, then you know you are away already. Or > you can add yourself to your buddy list. Anything is worth this dumb > box popping up. apparently you did not read my comments all that closely. i said i am not in gnome or kde, that i do not have the docklet. > > The box really is dumb. It is terrible UI. With all the stress GNOME > is giving these days to sane design, this away dialog definitely should > (at least optionally) go. good ui is a very important thing, and in fact we are looking at gnome's human interface guidelines and changing some things to meet them. in a couple places this is causing alot of debate, some of us disagree with gnome's conclusions. but more importantly than this, at this point i want to stress that gaim is NOT a gnome program. i am not sure if you are confused on this count or not, and so i am stressing it because many people have been confused. we use gtk. we have allowed people to optionally integrate more closely with gnome in the paste, but you will notice that the current cvs has removed all gnome specific code in favor of the freedesktop.org environment-independent specifications. gnome is stressing ui design a great deal. gaim is merely looking at it because the move to gtk2 requires so much of a re-write anyway that it happens to be a good time to consider such issues. > > Please, maintainers? :) I don't like trying to guess what sean or rob will try to do. all i can say is that i can almost guarantee that sean at least probly hasn't seriously looked at this patch because he's stuck on windows atm. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 19:26:51
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 14:09, Luke Schierer wrote: > As i said in a previous post, these comments are not directed towards > rejecting the patch. they are directed towards explaining why it is not > a priority. i have niether the authority to accept or commit a patch > adding an option like this. Why does priority matter? It has already been written. Maybe if this is merged then Chris can move on to work on other things you consider important :) > apparently you did not read my comments all that closely. i said i am > not in gnome or kde, that i do not have the docklet. No, I did read them. I was not arguing the point to you in specific but just that, in general, the docklet is hindered because the away dialog exists outside of it. Robert Love |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2002-12-24 19:46:20
|
Robert Love spake unto us the following wisdom: > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 14:09, Luke Schierer wrote: > > As i said in a previous post, these comments are not directed towards= =20 > > rejecting the patch. they are directed towards explaining why it is not= =20 > > a priority. i have niether the authority to accept or commit a patch=20 > > adding an option like this.=20 >=20 > Why does priority matter? It has already been written. In the meantime, why not just apply his patch to your own tree? As you say, it is already written... CVS handles this (reasonably) gracefully, so you can even continue to track CVS. Ethan --=20 And if I claim to be a wise man / it surely means that I don't know. -- Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son" |
From: Joel S. <joe...@at...> - 2002-12-24 08:08:53
|
On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:30, Robert Love wrote: <snip> In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... I agree. If the away message dialog box is to stay, someone at least give it a minimize button. Robert Love Hey, you're the guy who does the preemptible kernel patches, right? :-) Joel |
From: Luke S. <lsc...@gm...> - 2002-12-24 13:18:59
|
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:09:01AM -0800, Joel Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:30, Robert Love wrote: > <snip> > > In short, this is no reason for this box unless the user has enabled the > away queue. This patch is sane and is working here... > > > I agree. If the away message dialog box is to stay, someone at least > give it a minimize button. on my window manager (window maker), it has one. luke > > Robert Love > > Hey, you're the guy who does the preemptible kernel patches, right? :-) > > Joel -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons. |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-24 16:35:33
|
On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 03:09, Joel Smith wrote: > I agree. If the away message dialog box is to stay, someone at least > give it a minimize button. Yah, I do not have a minimize button here, either. Metacity is my WM. I think my real dislike of it comes from the notifier icon feature. This feature is great - I have gaim hidden but can bring it up with a single click to the icon. But then this dialog pops up (say, on auto away) on same random desktop and it just defeats the purpose. There is _no_ reason to create non-modal children dialogs for arbitrary pieces of information like the away message > Hey, you're the guy who does the preemptible kernel patches, right? > :-) Yes - kernel hackers use gaim, too. :) Robert Love |
From: Evan D. <ev...@ca...> - 2002-12-24 08:37:31
|
I'll just add my two cents and say this is a Good Thing. Having it as an option is a nice compromise. On Mon, 2002-12-23 at 21:22, Chris Rivera wrote: > The attached patch implements an option to not create the away message > box. A recent patch caused mine to not apply cleanly. This patch has > been updated and diffed against current CVS. > > I tested this with various combinations of all the other options. > Everything is working good. > > Please apply this to CVS. > > Chris Rivera -- Evan Doughty ev...@ca... |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2002-12-24 17:40:14
|
Robert Love spake unto us the following wisdom: > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 11:55, Ethan Blanton wrote: > > I'm not sure I like the tactic of "you guys suck, your UI sucks, here > > apply this and you'll suck less" for getting patches put in. >=20 > I do not think that is my approach at all. I am sorry if I came off > that way. That wasn't directed specifically at you (sorry, the Cc: and quotation kind of implied that), but more at this thread in general. For some reason (I think the emphasis of the 'me too's chiming in) this thread rubbed me the wrong way. > Gaim is a wonderful program, but it is not infallible either. To > improve - to evolve - Gaim's weaknesses need to be discovered and > fixed. Oh, no doubt. We all recognize this ... but right now some other things (completing the conversion to Gtk2, etc.) are taking a higher priority than random UI improvements. The fact that a patch languishes for a little while doesn't mean that it will never be considered, or that the core developers aren't going to put it in without a huge outpouring of grassroots support. > I think Chris's patch is an excellent step in the right direction, > as it fixes something that is a real issue. Gaim's UI does not > suck - its great, modulo this dialog box. If only that dialog box were the only problem. ;-) Ethan --=20 And if I claim to be a wise man / it surely means that I don't know. -- Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son" |