| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 06/21/2011 10:40 AM, Adrian Maier wrote:
If the contributed code is ok from a technical point of view but is rejected for design reasons .... hm, well, in this case it would indicate an unhealthy attitude towards the user community . There is no harm in having an additional option that is activated only on demand , and I expect that the devels realize it.
Maybe such a patch would be accepted in this specific case, but I would guess not. The last statement is wrong. A patch needs to be reviewed and tested to make sure it does what it should and makes nothing stop doing what it should. So here's harm already. Then it adds complexity. You have to care about it on refactoring, it's like extra weight you have to carry around.
The option needs to be exposed to the user somehow. It needs to be documented. If hardly anyone knows about it, it would be useless.
Those who have been arguing for minimizing on yet another click on the launcher will likely not be satisfied with an option. The real desire is default behavior, be it because the person doesn't want to have to change an option, be it for a true believe the behavior would be better for the majority of users.
-- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
