Hi,
I have a little bit the impression, that Rob and Jürgen are not
understanding, what is meant.
There is no demand, that special issues shouldt be resolved asap.
There is no demand, to give a date or release, when the issue is resolved.
There is only the wish, issues not to reset or to delete, that users
find _important to make their work with OpenOffice easier and better_.
The fact, that a user does not repeat his comments or requests each
year, does not mean, that he is no longer interrested in the issue.
It was good practice in the "old" community (as far as I know), that
issues and comments and votes never were reset or deleted. And it would
be contra-productive to begin with such "customs" in the "new" community.
There is no missunderstanding (at least on my side) about this project,
the ressources and possibilities and I read (or remember) not any
comment by others in this thread, that could be interpreted in this sense.
But to mention it here, Rob: There was one developer who "cared" for
5608 in 2008 (see "down under").
Some further comments inline:
Am 19.03.2013 17:15, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
On 3/19/13 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/19 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Guenter Marxen
<guenter.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Am 18.03.2013 19:05, schrieb Dave Fisher:
There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who are
more in touch with users have stated that it would be harmful. I trust
their
judgement.
...
Look f.e. at issue 5608
I suppose it depends on how you define "important".
There is nothing to suppose because I defined it: Working better on
"...long texts with (many) references".
That's surely far from being 'important for everyone'.
Since issue 5608
was entered, back in 2002, we've fixed 36054 issues in Bugzilla.
(31064 defects, 3839 enhancements and 1151 features). So that many
bugs were fixed, or enhancements/features implemented, while issue
#5608 was not. I don't know how you define "important", but to me
something that is behind 36,054 other items is as close to unimportant
as I can imagine.
Your arguing is not reasonable, because importance is never defined by
mere numbers. I accept, that "important" issues are not touched because
of lack of ressources. But f.e. the second mentioned issue 11901 is a
great disadvantage and "incompatibility" compared with the leading word
processor.
Remember, what things a developer chooses to code on is also a vote.
They vote with their time. I count that kind of vote very highly,
since it is backed up by actions. Those 36054 issues were important
enough for someone to actually invest their time into fixing it.
They "vote" relying on their "preferences" and "likes".
A developer, who never writes long texts with many references may say
5608 is unimportant and I accept his opinion. But perhaps in short time,
a new volunteer really understands the issue and likes to work on it.
I don't mean to offend anyone by telling them that their issue is not
I am not extremly touchy. ;-)
Rob, I think you are missing the point here. I agree that the choice of a
...
I insist: "we cannot do that now" is not the same of "we will not do that
simply because nobody did it before".
RGB ES, you are right. Thanks.
But this is not a case of "we don't have someone right now to work on
it". It is not a case of "not today, but maybe next week". This is
not a case of "Sorry, we can't fit it in this release, but maybe we'll
do it in the next release." What this is is a case where no one,
absolutely no one, zero, zip, nada, gar nichts, nobody has cared to
deal with the issue in over a decade. That screams out UNIMPORTANT.
Strange logic and false. That only screams out, that there was (or
remained) nobody, who understood the function or who had the time to
work on it.
But see comment #38 by Mathias Bauer (StarDivision/Sun, 2008), who
"cared" and targeted 5608 to 3.x. The reason why it was not resolved
then, seems clear to me.
Remember, there is such thing as false hope. And if ever there was an
example of false hope it is someone hoping for a decade old issue in
Bugzilla that has been passed by by thousands of other issues.
Strange logic. I'm not in a sentimental mood. But resolving enhancement
issues like 5608 and 11901 would be a valuable improvement for a not so
tiny group of users (f.e. at universities and alike).
But you are completely right, for the "tiny text writers" these issues
are "not important", they even do not need Writer. (Are this the target
users of AOO?)
I believe this thread will not bring any new information and we should
probably let die it.
Issues with votes are seen still as valid by some people and so let
these issues in BZ as they are. We should not give any guarantee that an
issue with many votes will be fixed in a future version. We should
better communicate that votes are one instrument to express additional
demand for an issue or RFE that developers potentially take into account
to set their own priorities.
I don't see that we can do more now but we should watch these issues to
ensure that we don't miss some really important ideas or bugfixes.
As said, I wish only, that such issues are not reset or deleted. There's
nothing to do.
But it would be wonderfull, when all hard work is completely done and
AOO is finished for eternity then you resolve issues 5608 and 11901...
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
