12 ms·

Did they ever implement that solution?

by traverseda 5y ago

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?
      - zxzax 5y ago
        I'm sorry, I think I could have been more clear. Yes the ticket was closed. The place to discuss options in the new approach would be in the new ticket. Even though that particular patch was rejected as a solution, newer potential solutions to the same problems could still be discussed in the new ticket. Is there some fact that I missed? That new ticket still seems to be open for discussion, and it doesn't look like they are opposed to solving the problem at hand, they're only opposed to that one particular solution that won't solve the problem in all cases.

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?
    - zxzax 5y ago
      I'm sorry, I think I could have been more clear. Yes the ticket was closed. The place to discuss options in the new approach would be in the new ticket. Even though that particular patch was rejected as a solution, newer potential solutions to the same problems could still be discussed in the new ticket. Is there some fact that I missed? That new ticket still seems to be open for discussion, and it doesn't look like they are opposed to solving the problem at hand, they're only opposed to that one particular solution that won't solve the problem in all cases.