Re: Bug#422085: Better terminal emulator patch
On 18.12.2007 03:47 schrieb David Nusinow:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:47:39AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Why was I opposed to implement this.
>>
>> 2. I *personally* was very annoyed by packages with very long presubj
>> text, which I doubt anyone reads anyway. Since I don't want rng to be
>> annoying to the users, I decided to leave that feature away. An
>> implementation of this feature would mean to pop up a window with some
>> text the user should read before continuing to report the bug. I don't
>> like popups and don't want rng to make use of them.
>
> I haven't implemented presubj text in my patch, so this is a non-issue for
> that specifically.
Yes, but I've merged this bug with a similar one where the reporter
wanted rng to support presubj.
>> 3. I'm definitely opposed to a feature which will pop up a *terminal*
>> where a user has to do something before he can proceed reporting a bug.
>> Sorry, but this won't happen in rng. I might consider such a thing if it
>> could be scripted to use QT or even GTK but a terminal popping up in a
>> GUI application is a no-go for me, sorry.
>
> For any script that is non-interactive the terminal will appear and then
> disappear once the script is done running. On my system it's barely
> noticeable. One thing that I'd be open to is modifying the standard so that
> scripts put something like #BUG_INTERACTIVE in the interactive scripts. We
> could trivially grep for this phrase, launch a terminal in this one case,
> or just run the script and get the output directly if this comment is
> absent. I don't know of any interactive bug scripts that currently exist,
> so this should be a fairly simple thing to require if people are willing
> (I've CC'ed -devel for opinions on this).
Sounds all very good to me, but I still doubt that there are actually
cases where it is really important for the majority of bugreports that
the user has to answer a specific question. I don't want to sound
ignorant (although I guess I already do...), but please show me a few
packages to convince me.
>> 4. I was *personally* very annoyed by some of the reactions on this
>> bugreport. Since we're all volunteers and stuff and this feature is
>> maybe a nice-to-have but definitely not a must-have, I decided to put
>> this issue very low on my to do list.
>>
>> However, I agree that the stuff in /usr/share/bug isn't completely
>> useless. The opposite is true, it makes the life of maintainers easier
>> and rng should make use of it where possible.
>>
>> So what can we do now? Maybe we can start all over and discuss this
>> issue in a more friendly and constructive way?
>>
>> Here's my offer: rng will support bugscripts, but it will not feature a
>> terminal popping up asking a user questions. I'm developing a GUI
>> application and a popping up terminal is not very GUI'ish for me. What
>> can we do about this? Is there a way to implement this?
>
> I've offered a partial solution for the terminal above. I think that
> neutering the interactive scripts is a horrific idea though. Users who can
> report bugs can handle having a terminal ask them a question or two.
That is probably true, but I don't want a *terminal* popping up asking
for questions in my (or any other) *GUI* application. Especially since
I'm currently not really convinced that those questions are really
necessary.
> That'd be a fine option. I don't know how you'd want to handle storing
> preferences, but it's probably fairly trivial. I'd be happy to work on that
> though.
A separate textile listing a package per line or something should be
sufficient.
>> And please, don't use abusive language or even insults when contacting
>> me about this issue. My rng-time is currently very limited and my
>> motivation to work especially on this issue is already very low. We're
>> speaking here about a fully optional feature. Providing the output of
>> some scripts or having to read a presubj is helpful, but *not* mandatory
>> when reporting a bug. So please, Be nice!
>
> I've been nice, polite, and patient, so please stop implying that I've been
> otherwise. Rather than hurl insults I wrote, tested, and improved the patch
Sorry, I didn't mean you. You (and others) where friendly and actually
trying to help. But I really received a lot of "unfriendly" feedback
about this issue. Some people seem to forget that I wasted *my* time to
make their (the bugreporters) life a bit easier, but as soon as you
don't do as they say, you become an asshole, moron and whatnot.
> for this. Several people have been interested in having this escalated to
> the tech-ctte, which I am willing to do, at which point it will no longer
> be a fully optional feature. I don't want to take this to the tech-ctte,
As far as I remember I was the one who offered to bring this to
tech-ctte, I don't remember why, but I think it was something like: some
argued that rng *had* do have this feature, while I insisted that it is
not mandatory or something. I think I even offered to implement it if
they decided that this feature is mandatory.
> but this issue really is that important. You might consider this an
> optional feature, but many of us do not. As for your limited time, I repeat
> my offer to upload this fix and ensure that it works, so you don't have to
> spend any time on it.
Again, I am not so much opposed to the bugscripts output (anymore), but
I really don't want a terminal popping up which even starts to ask the
user questions. Before we discuss this specific problem any further,
could someone please name a few packages where the script prompts the
user for questions?
Cheers,
Bastian
PS: Please CC me or the bugreport since I'm currently not following -devel.
--
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org
Reply to: