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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
