On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:41:58AM -0800, Jon Phillips wrote:

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 21:40 -0500, bulia byak wrote:

...

On 11/6/06, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:

...

Should I accept this patch? It is a stringfix for consistency between gimp and inkscape and layers...

It makes the menu inconsistent with itself. All other commands are verbs but this one is not.

Besides, if the patch changes that, it must also change the title of the "Add layer" window.

So you think don't change? Others???? Consensus plz...I do the will of the ppl...

I'd say keep 'Add Layer'. The layer menu of both programs are very different; in fact there's only one or two other items in the menus they seem to share. Consistency with GIMP would be nice, but on this point I don't see much benefit to changing this one item.

Bryce

[thought i had sent this already, before my sour reply to bulia (somewhat excessive in hindsight). sending now belatedly]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Jon Phillips wrote:

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 09:28 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:41:58AM -0800, Jon Phillips wrote:

...

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 21:40 -0500, bulia byak wrote:

...

On 11/6/06, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:

...

Should I accept this patch? It is a stringfix for consistency

between

...

...

...

...

gimp and inkscape and layers...

It makes the menu inconsistent with itself. All other commands are verbs but this one is not.

Besides, if the patch changes that, it must also change the title of the "Add layer" window.

So you think don't change? Others???? Consensus plz...I do the will of the ppl...

I'd say keep 'Add Layer'. The layer menu of both programs are very different; in fact there's only one or two other items in the menus they seem to share.

...

Consistency with GIMP would be nice, but on this point I don't see much benefit to changing this one item.

Incremental change! A start not the end.

Ok, the people have spoken...I will relay this.

Agreeing to intertia :(

I'd like if there was a good way to put the question to the users, you should at least bring it to the user mailing list before declaring it as "the will of the people". This is somewhat discouraging, but I do thank Jon for his prompt reply as it gave me incentive to put together a slightly modified patch to address bulias concern and fix a string I didnt grep the first time round. I thank Jon because more comments on more feature requests makes it easier to identify what work is more likely to be accepted and maybe pick out some low hanging fruit for new developers to cut their teeth on, and it means generally encouraging progress.

How about someone (not me) offering a counter-patch to gimp to show people are serious about consistency? I do still think it is better for the younger dynamic program to change, rather than try to push changes to the older more resistant to change project and improve what users have come to expect from not just GIMP but other programs too.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, bulia byak wrote:

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:40:29 -0500 From: bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> To: Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> Cc: Inkscape Development Mailing List inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Fwd: [Inkscape-tracker] [ inkscape-Patches-1591552 ] stringfix: s/Add Layer/New Layer]

On 11/6/06, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:

...

Should I accept this patch? It is a stringfix for consistency between gimp and inkscape and layers...

It makes the menu inconsistent with itself. All other commands are verbs but this one is not.

"Layers..." is most certainly not a verb, and that side steps the more important underlying question of improving consistency.

Inkscape already breaks all kinds of standard conventions and style with the current long wordy and repetitive labels.

Besides, if the patch changes that, it must also change the title of the "Add layer" window.

The next patch can change that, incremental improvement is the name of the game. The patch was intended to be better than just a suggestion on the mailing but you are welcome to submit a more comprehensive patch. It is unreasonable to expect more complicated patches and up front time investment if there is not a good chance of them being accepted, and the patch first ask questions later policy never seems to apply to my suggestions. If I were to submit a more detailed patch would very likely include the shortcuts Ctrl+Shift+N for creating a new layer, which would make the current label even more incongruous.

I submitted the patch in response to a discussion on the user list which pointed out other inconsistencies such as the icons in the Layer menu being different from those in the Layers dialog. Again the underlying issue is consistency with what users expect from other programs.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, bulia byak wrote:

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:56:03 -0500 From: bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> Cc: Inkscape Development Mailing List inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [Fwd: [Inkscape-tracker] [ inkscape-Patches-1591552 ] stringfix: s/Add Layer/New Layer]

On 11/8/06, Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> wrote:

...

The next patch can change that, incremental improvement is the name of the game.

It was really easy to resubmit the patch with the requested second change. Without it, the second change can be easily forgotten and lost. This would also save the effort of the patch committer... and me who has now to argue this trifle point :)

It would all be really simple if I were a mind reader, and an accomplished C++ devleper neither of which are true. (I dont actually claim any ability to program in C++ but I do know a little about computer programming and I can occasionally muddle through enough to put together a patch.)

If it was more than a stringfix and I had to fully build inkscape then a a supposedly minor change would be a signficant amount of hassle, so please do not assume. Also I don't keep a copy of Inkscape CVS around all the time - you cannot expect part time contributors or beginners to have an up to date copy or any copy of source at all - which is another hurdle. Your attitude is tolerable but if you want to encourage more contributors you must try harder. (Your comment that adding verbs was "straightforward enough" followed by others asking for more information and your views that "clone tiles" was easy to use are just a few examples of you thinking differently, which is understandable just a little patronising and you do not even seem to realise you are far from ordinary.)

I resent being held to a higher standard than people hold themselves to. Many patches require further changes, such as certain recent patches which added new Help menu items which point to web pages with inadequate information. I do still intend to update the page the "report a bug" item links to but I haven't gotten around to it yet. (As I said before if it is going to be linked to so prominantly it needs to be clearer and explain to users the distinction between bugs and feature requests so they dont get pissed of when their "bug" doesn't meet the criteria for what Inkscape developers consider serious bugs. The distinction sometimes feels harhs and I'm not even used to because Bugzilla doesn't really need to make it so bluntly.)

I dont suppose the report bugs page could mirror an "approved page" from the Wiki? ie point to a frozen preapproved version in the wiki but also point to a "latest version" in the Wiki which could include updated information? (If it is not impractical just let me know offlist and then I'll post a request for it, so as not to further confuse this existing thread).