Comment 126 for bug 733349

@All
The problem I have with this whole decision is that a real question was raised in the whole discussion and then it was ignored:

1) When the window of a program/application is already focused and you click the corresponding launcher icon (of that program) you expect usually that something happens

2) The current behaviour is: nothing happens

3) "nothing" is really not very much (forgive me the irony)

4) The patch submitted by Marc is really interesting because it sees to the fact that there should never be a button (or menu option, or link, or check-box...) which does not show any reaction when a user clicks on it

5) If the path is not accepted this bug report still cannot/must not be set to won't fix. The reason for this is simple: you still have a user who expects a reaction when he clicks on the icon. If there is a situation where this expectation if not fulfilled (ergo "nothing" happens) then there is still an error present.

6) This is perhaps not the original bug report. But still the question was raised during the discussion of this report.

7) I would at least expect another proposal.
For instance, if the window is already focused and somebody clicks still on the icon you can have an effect that makes the window glow for a second so that one sees that the launcher icon indeed does not serve in hiding/minimizing the windows but instead focuses them. In case of an environment where the whole desktop is cluttered by different small windows this would even help in showing which window is active in the moment (though this would be a side effect, for I usually expect a user to know which window he/she is currently using).

@Michael
Concerning the idea that somebody has to maintain a patch:
I know that. There are two possibilites
1) Canonical closes launchpad for the public and makes it a system where people can only post the bugs they found. And in the best case even that should not be possible and instead all bug requests should be filed via apport. So they won't get any patches by users which they would have to maintain. And on the other hand no user will be disappointed that he/she invested much time in fixing a bug and still the work he/she put in it won't be appreciated.
(Certainly the possibility to reject a patch because of lacking quality should be considered. This would indeed be a reason to reject a patch.)
The solution to send the bug reports via apport (and only apport) is ideal because thus a users will not have the possibility to request changes which belong to a wishlist and therefore Canonical is spared from any discussion about their design decisions. Normal users which have a own opinion will still rage and rave about some of these design decisions because one sometimes gets the idea that decisions were made without much thinking and discussion, but as there are many good design decisions made as well, this should not be a problem because many people will be content with what they get.

2) You (meaning Canonical) accept the fact that people post requests in which they demand changes to the system. But Canonical should then make clear that they do not want any extra work from non-canonical members because they are not willing to maintain patches from users. So do not post any messages on planet.ubuntu or anywhere to get people to fix bugs, as I deem this insolent. Canonical cannot request users to work for free on those bugs they deem worthy to be worked on but completely ignore those bugs in which they are not interested.