Comment 77 for bug 390508

@Sebastien:

> You should maybe come with concrete example of things that the current
> design is limiting which would benefit users

This thread is full of examples! That you consider them irrelevant, that's a
different story, but all these people that have written on this thread have
a valid (for them) use case where the timeout parameter is important.
Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. Plus, you do realise there may be
hundreds or maybe thousands of other people that just saw the thread and the
arrogant position the developers are taking and just decided to forget about
it, in order to not waste time writing stuff here in vain.

As somebody else was saying, if notify-send supported merging and replacing
we could have worked without the timeout parameter; but since it doesn't,
it's essential. But why would you want to improve notify-send by writing all
the code required to add these features (replacing and merging) when the
timeout patch already exists and it works? (Aside from the fact that I still
don't understand why the timeout parameter _has to be disregarded_ anyway -
I mean, we could have timeouts and replacing and merging.)

@enb:

> Is there some higher up who actually cares about the users that we can
> contact for an explanation of this instead of shouting upon deaf ears?

That's a very good point; I thought about this as well. Maybe there's a
hierarchy of people that we can use to address this dispute.

--
Support Wikipedia:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en
http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/
--
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom'.

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>wrote:

> > Yes, but those abilities are not possible with notify-send.
>
> so there is an another way to fix your issue there which is to improve
> notify-send or have a notify-osd-send handling those
>
> > to see which current device is active unless I pause for 5 seconds
> each time I want to switch devices. This makes notify-send totally
> useless.
>
> that's a fair point but notify-osd doesn't force you to wait, see what
> happens when changing tracks with a music player on lucid, the
> limitation there is not with what notify-osd let you do but rather with
> the notify-send command
>
> > It seems as if the Ubuntu UI developers have a deep seated inability
> to contemplate the possibility that other people have useful and
> productive things to say.
>
> What does that mean exactly? This comment doesn't seem especially
> constructive in reply to a question which aims at understanding your
> needs to try to solve the issue... Why can't we have something looking
> nice and behaving in a consitant way there which still working
> correctly? You failed so far at showing the need of notify-osd changes
> there
>
> ** Changed in: notify-osd (Ubuntu)
> Assignee: Mirco Müller (macslow) => (unassigned)
>
> --
> notify-send ignores the expire timeout parameter
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>