On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:38:59 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Given how excruciatingly hard it is to get access to the OpenSUSE bug
>>> tracker... no, I haven't.
>>
>> 1. Create user ID 2. Validate your e-mail address 3. Go to
>> bugzilla.opensuse.org and enter a bug
>>
>> Not terribly difficult, really.
> 
> Except that you have to give them your *real* name, who you work for,
> your annual income, your mother's maiden name, and your inside leg
> measurement. No, not hard at all.

No, you actually don't.  They ask, but (a) you don't need to fill in all 
the fields, and (b) even if you DO have to fill in all the fields, you 
don't need to provide real information.

So no, it actually *isn't* that difficult.  Remember that you're talking 
with one of the admins of the openSUSE forums, so I'm not just some yahoo 
out there who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes 
to this.

> Given that the bug is almost 100% certain to be a GNOME bug, they will
> just pass it to the GNOME team and then do nothing.

Well, fine, then Andy, screw it and report the bug upstream then, if 
you're so damned sure of yourself.  Again, that's not terribly difficult.

>> File a bug, or don't complain.  Seriously, that is probably the most
>> annoying thing you can do is bitch about something that's fixable and
>> not report a bug.
> 
> Well, maybe they shouldn't actively dissuade people from filing bugs by
> making it so sodding hard to file a bug? :-P

It *isn't* hard.  I've filed many bugs over the years, and it isn't the 
oh-so-difficult process you seem to think it is - based on exactly ZERO 
experience doing so.

> You know what's *really* annoying? Seeing an open bug for THE EXACT
> PROBLEM that our production application has, seeing that upstream has
> fixed it, and yet OpenSUSE refuses to release an RPM for it. *That* is
> annoying! (We're talking about a different bug now. The ticket has been
> open for many months. The fix is literally to build a new RPM. Yet it
> isn't happening...)

Example?  Because for that bug, I'd like to nudge someone, or at least 
find out why.

>>> Perhaps it was the "show task list" option then. I remember spending
>>> weeks trying to configure the shell the way we want it, and in the end
>>> I couldn't do it.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "show task list option".  What was the
>> specific thing you were trying to do?
> 
> The option to have an icon for each window that's open, so you can
> instantly switch between windows (or just tell when a hidden window
> closes itself). You know, like the Windows taskbar.

Oh, like the dash-to-dock extension gives you.  Yeah, that extension is 
one that I use, and it works great.

>>> I'm not saying it doesn't *work*. I'm saying it's clearly not optimal.
>>
>> It's optimal for me, and I don't use a tablet.  "Optimal" is clearly a
>> matter of personal taste, and I wish people would stop putting forth
>> their personal opinion as cold hard fact - it's not.
> 
> Well, I don't know man. Version 2 of a product has a heap of features
> which are gone in version 3. To be, that means that version 3
> *objectively* has fewer features. I didn't think there's much to argue
> about that...

I used GNOME2, and I use GNOME3.  Both did the job I needed, so I don't 
really care if there are "fewer features", because features I don't use 
are unimportant to me.  Hence, personal preference.

>>>> No.  What you do is you identify what it is you want to do, and you
>>>> find that part of the code, if that's the way it's actually done (I
>>>> don't for a moment pretend to have written an extension, however
>>>> given your track record in overstating things, you don't really think
>>>> I'm going to take your word for it, do you? ;) )
>>>
>>> You realise I got *paid money* to write several shell extensions and
>>> modify some existing ones, right?
>>
>> You realise that that's no guarantee that anyone's an expert at a task,
>> right? I know lots of people who get paid to do things who don't take
>> the optimal route to doing them.
> 
> Your point is valid. My point is that I'm not talking about "oh hey, I
> tried to do this thing, but it was a bit hard so I gave up after five
> minutes". This is something I spent MULTIPLE MONTHS trying to solve.

And did you ask for help?  Or did you spend months beating your head 
against the wall in solitude and then declare it impossible?  Again, past 
performance is my indicator here, so again, you'll have to forgive my 
cynicism about your approach to solving what you see as an "impossible" 
task.

>> How many questions did you ask on, oh, I don't know, the GNOME mailing
>> lists?
> 
> Yes, because I *want* to sign up to yet *another* mailing list just to
> get basic developer information that should already be written down
> somewhere. :-P

So no, you didn't ask for help, yet you complain about not being able to 
get help.  That's telling.

> In seriousness: I asked on Stack Overflow. The question was upvoted
> several times, and many other people lamented the utter lack of any
> documentation. But nobody actually answered the question. Which is what
> happens when nobody knows the answer!

One venue, where GNOME development isn't a primary discussion topic, does 
not mean "nobody knows the answer".  Except in your world, it would seem.

>>> (How THE HELL these other people wrote this stuff utterly baffles
>>> me... I guess one or two people might have too much free time, but
>>> given the vast number of extensions available [most of which add back
>>> functionality that GNOME 2 had built-in], it screams that somebody
>>> somewhere must have some real documentation...)
>>
>> Bingo!  Just because you didn't happen to look in the right place
>> doesn't mean that the documentation doesn't exist.
> 
> As I said, I find it really baffling. The extensions I've looked at
> aren't exactly trivial or simple. And yet, I can't find any
> documentation, and nobody I asked about it can find any either. Not even
> so much as a blog entry or an auto-generated object list...
> 
>>> In an OO language, you don't generally modify a huge, complex
>>> framework by deleting code from the running system and replacing it
>>> with your own.
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>>> Then again, JavaScript isn't completely OO, so...
>>
>> And "deleting code from the running system" isn't the same as extending
>> it.
> 
>  From what I've seen, you write extensions by deleting existing objects
> and replacing them with new ones. (Or maybe just replacing a method or
> two.) You'd think it works by creating a new object that exposes a
> defined set of operations, and passing that to the framework. But no, it
> seems you just put your hands in the framework, rip out the bits you
> don't want, and then replace them.

Overriding is not the same as "ripping out the bits you don't want and 
replacing them".  You should know that from your study of OOP methods.

> And then watch it all break horrifyingly in the next minor-release of
> the shell. >_<

If you refuse to find the right venue to ask for help, then you kinda get 
what you deserve there.  I am not saying that it's a perfect environment 
to develop in, but jesus, Andy, if you aren't going to ask people who 
know what they're doing for help when you get stuck, what exactly do you 
think people are going to think or say?

> Still, IMHO, I think most of this brokenness goes back to "we decided to
> build a huge, complex application in a scripting language". All problems
> flow from there.

Now there's something I might be able to get behind.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message