On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:31:42 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > Kevin, you work on a desktop which sufficiently represents your > views. I think we're all aware that if we want fifteen thousand > settings in the control panel, we can run KDE. Do you really believe > you're going to convince the GNOME developers to turn GNOME into KDE > with posts like the above? If not, what's the point of writing them? > What do you expect your post to achieve? I don't think that's what he is trying to tell. I believe it's: either expose the setting, or don't have the setting. The middle way is broken, be it semi-official tweak tool or even worse "advanced" tab. Especially if the tweak tool is for settings that are expected to be broken, unsupported or eating kitties. I mean, what's behind the idea of having an unsupported, half-broken switch in a *stable* release in the first place? If you don't support it, or it isn't finished, why it's in the stable release? If it's supported and finished, why it isn't visible? The most *I* can understand is: "we have implemented this setting, because we think it's important, the setting is supported and it isn't eating kitties, but we don't know yet how to properly expose it in UI". But Olav seems to suggest otherwise and that's probably what Kevin responds to. Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
