Hi Kohei,
thanks for your reply. I am looking forward to the fruitful discussion
regarding bugs 39167 / 39168 / 39169 on the UX mailing list.
Thanks for making me understand the matured objectives of the
EasyHacks-system. Although I do not share your rough statements about
"mis-using", "injecting" and "pet peeves", I propose that I add easy
bugs or enhancement requests as "[ProposedEasyHack]" in the future.
Then, I do not conflict with the objectives of the EasyHacks-system as
you pointed them out.
However, I would like to point to some problems and inconsistencies in
the EasyHacks-system that might be worth to consider:
1. The whiteboard tag "ProposedEasyHack" does not seem to have
any effect. So far, I have not seen any bug tagged as
"ProposedEasyHack" which was touched by a developer and
changed to "EasyHack"
2. Furthermore, if an easy bug or enhancement request does not
contain any information on being a easy hack, I have not
seen anyone adding this flag to it afterwards, even if it is
really easy.
3. You mentioned that it is very very rare that someone
"magically picks up" enhancement requests. My experience is
different. Please see: bug 33751, bug 36734, bug 36735, bug
36946, bug 36977, bug 39167, bug 39168. This is an argument
to be more laissez-faire with the end users adding
enhancement requests and EasyHacks to bugzilla. I just
propose this. In my opinion, it can help to drive
innovation, to collect ideas, to identify easy hacks and to
attract new developers. Please keep in mind that end users
might not be that stupid not to be able to identify easy
enhancements.
Summing up: I propose that "ProposedEasyHacks" are taken more seriously
and are really be converted by someone to "EasyHacks" if identified to
be really easy. Also, in my opinion, the mentorship-argument does not
hold for really-easy-hacks (please see my examples above).
Thanks,
Gerald
Am 05.08.2011 21:22, schrieb Kohei Yoshida:
Hi Gerald,
First of all, thanks for introducing yourself on this list. I've been
personally wondering who you were since you've filed several EasyHack
bugs and I never saw your name or your email address here before.
I'll leave the specific enhancement request discussion to the UX folks,
but let me address several of your expectations below.
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 16:59 +0200, Gerald Leppert wrote:
Generally, my experience with enhancement requests in the LO bugzilla
(mine or requests from others) has been that there is currently very
little to no feed back, review, discussion or comments made to
enhancement requests. IMHO this situation is a bit sad and I hope that
this will be changing in the future.
Normally we don't respond to RFE's filed in bugzilla with enthusiasm
unless there is a sign that the proposer is willing to invest
development resources to help bring the RFE into fruition. We already
receive an abundance of feature requests, and we simply don't have
resources to respond to each and every one of them.
So, I don't want you to have the expectation that, if you file an RFE,
someone else will magically pick it up and make it happen. That's very
very rare.
Improvements to hybrid PDF: As mentioned in the bug 39168, the hybrid
PDF feature is one of the killer features in LibreOffice. However, its
implementation has some practical and usability problems out of those
most had been already raised in the OpenOffice.org bugzilla. However,
most of them can be easily improved in terms of usability and handling.
This was my intention of the three enhancement requests made to hybrid
PDFs (bug 39167, bug 39168, bug 39169) and I was glad that Gabor liked
the idea and took the initiative to start working on two of these easy
hacks.
Defending bug 39168: As described in the bug entry, the current file
ending "pdf" is suboptimal and hybrid PDFs need to be made more visible
to the user. In the current situation, the hybrid PDF feature is much
less useful than it could be and in many cases it is even
counterproductive (i.e. users who try to open 'real' PDF files in
LibreOffice assuming that they are hybrid PDFs.) There is indeed no hint
to the user what file actually is hybrid pdf. By the way, the file
ending ".pap.pdf" is exactly how it is handled in Papyrus
(www.papyrus.de) where the idea of hybrid PDFs was first implemented.
Marking bug 39168 as 'invalid' without adding any criticism or comment
to the bug entry itself is - in my opinion - inappropriate.
I personally don't object to your argument for the double extension, but
I'd like to leave it to the UX folks to decide what would be the good
design.
Having said that, I'm not pleased to see someone mis-using our EasyHack
system to inject his/her favorite features. EasyHack is designed to
help new developers get a feel for our code base, and is supposed to be
easy enough and/or have someone willing to provide code pointers&
mentorship etc. It is not designed for the end users to submit his or
her favorite pet peeves. If you file one, you are basically signing up
to mentor for the implementation of that feature, either fully or
partially.
So, my question is, are you familiar enough with the code base to help
Jenei work on this?
Kohei
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
