Comment 235 for bug 390508

Vanessa Lee (vanessax) wrote :

Where is the illogical reasoning where:

A group of people encountered a timeout option that was not working, spent many hours of their time, lives, and energy, to figure out what was causing it, and only to find out it does nothing but did not warm them of so?

They posted about this, and have asked for:

1. At least a warning.
2. An option to enable or disable it.
3. To make it work as documented.

So the logical reasoning is to say, "no we won't do that and we won't tell you about it, only way to find out is the same way everyone else did by ending up here on this thread".

> The people who have tried to figure out why the timeout does > not work
> are going by out-of-date notify-send documentation. nh2 > kindly attached
> a patch that adds the sentence "Currently ignored" to the > timeout flag
> description. Unfortunately that implies that the change is > temporary,
> when it is not; a viable patch would just remove mention of > the flag

Latest version does not reflect that... still.

> It is not the responsibility of a software project to contain > the union
> of all features or options provided by its predecessors. That > leads to
> overcomplexity and to increasingly unreliable and > unmaintainable

This is not the union of all features, it's clearly something that needs to be addressed and we have proven it with this thread alone.

Let's look at Windows and Linux:

Windows is commercially based, they include "features" that sell, how often does Windows crash?

Linux is community based, anyone can contribute, the features that people want get in. How often does Linux crash?

Having more features does not always result in overcomplexity, increasingly unreliable, and unmaintainable software. We want meaningful features that people are asking for, not just something that would be "neat".

We've wasted so many days and weeks on this topic, it needs to be addressed, not just "won't fix".