On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, bulia byak wrote:
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Inkscape 0.44 Hard Freeze
On 6/3/06, Ben Fowler <ben.the.mole@...400...> wrote:
FWIW, I suspect that we may have to ask the parties who hold strong views, such as Alan, the Drivers such as Bulia and the Translators to give us pros and cons for two basic alternatives:
A. We agree that the present name "Effects" is wrong, but delivering Effects "On" in version 0.44 is so important that we will use this name (perhaps merely as a placeholder) and fix the UI in the next release.
B. We agree that a coherent UI is so important that we will leave Effects "Off" in version 0.44 and turn them on by default when the UI is fit for public use.
No wonder this thread grew to 20+ messages.
The number of comments is an overly simplistic way to judge a conversation. Anway at least of third of the message were about ellipses but it does go to show how rough the extensions still are.
Is no one listening to what I'm saying?
Yes I am listening and continuing to respond but I'm not agreeing. You as a developer and very skilled technical user are biased, and it seems like you almost always take the counter point to what I suggest.
You have very good English but you are a non-native speaker and yet without hint of doubt and leaving little room for negotiation you are making strong statements on what you consider the correct label.
No interest at all was shown in report in the tracker. That may only show not enough people are reading the reports rather than not having any opinions but it still isn't good. (bulia does comment extensively in the tracker, this comment is directed at the other naysayers.)
For me it's neither A nor B, but C: leave "Effects" alone forever. It's perfectly logical and in place.
This is the precedence argument again. It does have a certain logic to it but so does my proposal so any claims of logic are moot.
The notion of commit first ask question later falls flat if there is no willingless to change things later.
Any arguments for "Effect" I've heard so far were very unconvincing.
The arguments are not being treated equally.
And even if I agreed to the name change, of course disabling effects for the release because of this is simply out of the question.
To say something is "out of the question" is unambiguously blunt and shows an unwillingness to discuss this. Is Inkscape to be run on a veto system because that is what your previous comment sounds like? Bryce was initially encouraging and there were several comments which didn't mind either way (which I intially though was bulias opinion too but in hindsight he was agreeing with a differnt part of the same message). A straw poll might suggest people prefer not to change but the argument was not definative, please step back if you do not care to discuss it further.
Can we please drop this subject?
When has that question ever worked in an online discussion?