BZ 2138 (was Re: ANN: BreakpointNavigator Plugin release)

[Dennis Brown]

I agree,

If you use all your votes up, and then want to vote for something else, 
you can always at that point review what you voted on and take some 
votes away from lower priority bugs so you can put them onto the new 
item.  That way you can prioritize your votes for the things that have 
bothered you.  It is RR managers job to prioritize the whole list.  The 
votes are just a help in deciding how important the issue is to the 
users who care.  If you don't vote, don't complain about the choices 
made for you.

Dennis

On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Jerry Balzano wrote:

> On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:48 AM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
>
>> btw - BZ 2138 (can't run apps by double-click) is an Enhancement 
>> request - since the docs don't claim it should be possible, I 
>> couldn't find any excuse to make it a "bug" rather than an 
>> enhancement request; that may be another reason it hasn't been fixed 
>> yet.
>
>
> Given the universality of the double-click-document-lauch-application 
> paradigm, I'd say that the reason it's not in the docs is that **it is 
> generally assumed to hold true**.  Surely we can think of many 
> "obvious" characteristics that wouldn't be "in the docs" but would be 
> taken as a bug if they didn't hold true.  So I don't accept the "in 
> the docs" as a criterion for bughood.  (This is all the more true 
> given the admittedly sketchy nature of the docs; why would there be 
> any need e.g. for Dan Shafer to write an eBook on the IDE if the docs 
> were in any sense comprehensive?)
>
> While I'm at it, I also object to the "counsel-of-despair" attitude of 
> not voting for bugs just because one hasn't reviewed all of bugzilla.  
> The idea that there may be "more important bugs" that you haven't run 
> across in your day-to-day transactions with Rev doesn't make sense to 
> me.  I think as users we need to trust -- if nothing else -- the idea 
> of our interactions with Rev as a reasonable sample of possible 
> interactions.  So bugs that persistently get in our way are worth 
> noting for that reason alone.  Bugs that never darken our doors are by 
> definition not critical to the (or at least our) day-to-day experience 
> using Rev.  When someone encounters what looks like a bug, they 
> mention it to this list.  If it's already been bugzilla-ed (and 
> therefore already encountered as a problem by at least one other 
> user), someone generally responds to inform the original mentioner of 
> that fact.  If it's been a very recent topic of conversation, the 
> mentioner might even get (gently) chided for not paying close enough 
> attention to the list.
>
> Clearly, reading all of (or even a sizeable fraction of) bugzilla is 
> not a reasonable practice to expect of Rev users; if that were the 
> criterion for legitimate voting for bugs, it would never be legitimate 
> for most of us to vote on anything (folks like Richard aside).  What 
> *is* a reasonable practice to expect, when one finds a bug, is for one 
> to do a quick search of the list archive to look for potentially 
> useful/relevant information, and failing on that score, mentioning it 
> the list.
>
> Perhaps I'll be in the minority on this issue too, like I was on Dan 
> reporting on "third party" products and plugins (Dan, you never 
> addressed the "looking over D Shafer's shoulder" mindset that I would 
> think you'd welcome on the part of potential readers; omitting 
> third-party products that you use all the time would at best weaken 
> this possibility and at worst mislead ... end parenthetical).  But I 
> thought I'd try nonetheless, both on this specific bug#2138 and on the 
> general "get out the vote" aesthetic.
>
> Not despairing yet,
> Jerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>