5 ms·

I know it's fun for people to hate on GNOME but if you actually read the bug reports, the feature was not rejected. The patch was rejected in favor of a differe

by zxzax 5y ago

I know it's fun for people to hate on GNOME but if you actually read the bug reports, the feature was not rejected. The patch was rejected in favor of a different way to implement the feature.

traverseda 5y ago
Having observed this for a while that often seems to be just the way Gnome works. Patches that help non-Gnome projects are held to a much higher (sometimes unobtainable) standard than patches that help members of the Gnome foundation. It seems very insular, and if you want to "scratch your own itch" as an outsider expect to take 5-20x as much effort for the same feature. There will always be a reason why this patch isn't acceptable, despite the overall code-quality in gnome projects being... what it is. I'd bet if a Gnome app needed this feature that patch would have been quickly and quietly accepted.
- zxzax 5y ago
  Again if you actually read the bug report, it contradicts what you're saying. This patch was rejected because it created unnecessary work for terminals outside the GNOME project. The favored solution would help all terminals using that widget.
  - traverseda 5y ago
    Did they ever implement that solution?
    - zxzax 5y ago
      It doesn't look like it, I'm sure they would be open to patches to help out there.
      - traverseda 5y ago
        I'm a lot less sure, and the lack of clear requirements makes me even less certain. Also things like >adding only hooks for you means that all the other terminals get no benefit. Makes me quite concerned since these hooks weren't just for termite, as evidenced by tilix showing interest in this patch set. >Implementing this in VTE would mean ruling out having any flexibility in the terminal using the library. [...] an implementation inside VTE won't satisfy the use case. I think that the termite developer explained very clearly why the approach suggested by the VTE maintainer wouldn't actually solve the problem they were having, and the maintainer responded with a simple "wontfix" and no more discussion. This is kind of the thing we're talking about. One project said they needed this, another project said they'd also appreciate this feature, and instead of discussing how to make this work, setting clear requirements and the like, it took 2 years to respond to the first patch submission and then the issue was just randomly closed in the middle of a discussion.
        zxzax 5y ago
        > I'm a lot less sure, and the lack of clear requirements makes me even less certain. If you are interested to work on this patch, it wouldn't hurt to ask the maintainer for clarification. >as evidenced by tilix showing interest in this patch set. That's two of them, there are other terminals that use VTE. >I think that the termite developer explained very clearly why the approach suggested by the VTE maintainer wouldn't actually solve the problem they were having I don't think so, the termite developer is making that assumption before the new patch was even completed. Additional options could be added with the suggested approach.
        traverseda 5y ago
        I feel like you're not actually reading what I posted, which is frustrating. Like this: >Additional options could be added with the suggested approach. doesn't make any sense when the maintainer closed the ticket with "wontfix" in the middle of the discussion? Are we both reading the same thread? It seems like we're disagreeing about some fundamental facts here, but actually reading the ticket makes the facts pretty clear?

by zxzax 5y ago

I know it's fun for people to hate on GNOME but if you actually read the bug reports, the feature was not rejected. The patch was rejected in favor of a different way to implement the feature.

traverseda 5y ago

Having observed this for a while that often seems to be just the way Gnome works. Patches that help non-Gnome projects are held to a much higher (sometimes unobtainable) standard than patches that help members of the Gnome foundation. It seems very insular, and if you want to "scratch your own itch" as an outsider expect to take 5-20x as much effort for the same feature. There will always be a reason why this patch isn't acceptable, despite the overall code-quality in gnome projects being... what it is. I'd bet if a Gnome app needed this feature that patch would have been quickly and quietly accepted.

zxzax 5y ago
Again if you actually read the bug report, it contradicts what you're saying. This patch was rejected because it created unnecessary work for terminals outside the GNOME project. The favored solution would help all terminals using that widget.
- traverseda 5y ago
  Did they ever implement that solution?
  - zxzax 5y ago
    It doesn't look like it, I'm sure they would be open to patches to help out there.
    - traverseda 5y ago
      I'm a lot less sure, and the lack of clear requirements makes me even less certain. Also things like >adding only hooks for you means that all the other terminals get no benefit. Makes me quite concerned since these hooks weren't just for termite, as evidenced by tilix showing interest in this patch set. >Implementing this in VTE would mean ruling out having any flexibility in the terminal using the library. [...] an implementation inside VTE won't satisfy the use case. I think that the termite developer explained very clearly why the approach suggested by the VTE maintainer wouldn't actually solve the problem they were having, and the maintainer responded with a simple "wontfix" and no more discussion. This is kind of the thing we're talking about. One project said they needed this, another project said they'd also appreciate this feature, and instead of discussing how to make this work, setting clear requirements and the like, it took 2 years to respond to the first patch submission and then the issue was just randomly closed in the middle of a discussion.
      - zxzax 5y ago
        > I'm a lot less sure, and the lack of clear requirements makes me even less certain. If you are interested to work on this patch, it wouldn't hurt to ask the maintainer for clarification. >as evidenced by tilix showing interest in this patch set. That's two of them, there are other terminals that use VTE. >I think that the termite developer explained very clearly why the approach suggested by the VTE maintainer wouldn't actually solve the problem they were having I don't think so, the termite developer is making that assumption before the new patch was even completed. Additional options could be added with the suggested approach.
        traverseda 5y ago
        I feel like you're not actually reading what I posted, which is frustrating. Like this: >Additional options could be added with the suggested approach. doesn't make any sense when the maintainer closed the ticket with "wontfix" in the middle of the discussion? Are we both reading the same thread? It seems like we're disagreeing about some fundamental facts here, but actually reading the ticket makes the facts pretty clear?