Il 08/07/2010 17:22, Sebastien Bacher ha scritto:
>> option allowing the power users to switch from the default fixed timeout to client defined timeouts is easy to implement and
> doesn't disturb anybody that might not care. "why is that so much of an issue?". But once again you won't reply.
>
> There is no strong reason to not accept such changes
But we are still discussing...
> out of the fact
> that extra code means extra bugs and the notify-osd team could not be
> wanting to deal with those.
Which bugs such change could hide? We are talking about few lines of
code... This is the usual excuse for not doing so, otherwise we should
stop software development due to possible bugs introductions or
regressions. The point is that the Ubuntu team reject everything that is
not coming from themselves, right or wrong it doesn't matter.
Il 08/07/2010 17:22, Sebastien Bacher ha scritto:
>> option allowing the power users to switch from the default fixed timeout to client defined timeouts is easy to implement and
> doesn't disturb anybody that might not care. "why is that so much of an issue?". But once again you won't reply.
>
> There is no strong reason to not accept such changes
But we are still discussing...
> out of the fact
> that extra code means extra bugs and the notify-osd team could not be
> wanting to deal with those.
Which bugs such change could hide? We are talking about few lines of
code... This is the usual excuse for not doing so, otherwise we should
stop software development due to possible bugs introductions or
regressions. The point is that the Ubuntu team reject everything that is
not coming from themselves, right or wrong it doesn't matter.