1 |
On Wednesday 06 July 2011 22:41:25 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 06 July 2011 22:02:03 pk did opine thusly: |
3 |
> > > Devs get a certain amount of leeway and tolerance from users> > because |
4 |
of what they do as volunteers. But there's a line> > somewhere and in my view |
5 |
arbitrarily deciding to obsolete a> > toolkit just because you feel> |
6 |
> > Yes, but what can we do about it? Force him (I assume he's> volunteering |
7 |
and is not payed for his work) to continue supporting> it? Well, I assume we |
8 |
could pay him... or something. |
9 |
> Well, there's really only one thing that appeals to your average devin any |
10 |
area: |
11 |
> Treat them like a dev and appeal to their better judgement. |
12 |
> One can recognise that a dev is acting like a total dick, but pointingit out |
13 |
gets you nowhere. I refer you to my vast experience ofattempting to do the |
14 |
same with the devs I work with :-) It alsoapplies to sysadmins, people who |
15 |
(embarrassingly) point out that I ama complete jerk lots of the time tend to |
16 |
get nowhere to. |
17 |
> Reasoned, well supported arguments coupled with a little ego-strokingis what |
18 |
motivates most devs. Nikos' last comment on the bug is a goodone - asking for |
19 |
a list of supported gnome apps in the tree thatrequire gtk+-2. |
20 |
> It does require that one put aside one's urges to pull this off. Priceof the |
21 |
trade we work in, I suppose. |
22 |
|
23 |
and/or take the whole mess to -dev... |
24 |
|
25 |
I couldn't care less about gtk stuff - but forcing gtk3 just because - and |
26 |
that on a package where gtk3 is the worse choice... not a smart move. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
#163933 |