We spent an enormous amount of time working on bug-fixing and polishing tasks for Plasma 6.1 this week. It was a big release, and there were some rough edges around the new edit mode. So we put qui…
This isn’t a joke. Often times rewriting features like this will allow the code to be more streamlined and use the latest KDE library features. This is brining new features using modern and more maintable code that solves long standing issues. Fixing the old code sometimes isn’t worth the effort for a variety of reasons (based on unmaintained libraries, the original code might have been written a while ago so it’s had many revisions of fixes that necessarily complicated the code, etc.)
You misunderstand me. They can write new code and be ready when the bug hunting phase is over. The end user only gets bug fixes. Later they can backport any new feature after the phase.
I don’t think anyone has misunderstood you here. You misunderstood what you wrote in your first comment. The new desktop edit window is not proposing any new functionality that wasn’t there, but showcasing it in a more streamlined fashion. That’s in itself refining the user experience, which is exactly what you wanted.
The problem here is that we are dealing in largely imprecise terms. If we instead turn to semantic versioning for inspiring what we’d consider a large change, then Plasma 5 -> 6 is a big change, breaking previous API.
The new desktop edit effect is largely irrelevant under this rather precise terminology.
It is not irrelevant to me and I made it multiple times clear. Its a suggestion by me, regardless of what terminology you use or the team uses. The desktop edit change is a big change which I suggest not to do for a year. Only bug fixes and small changes that enhance and improve usability. The desktop edit change is a huge change for the developers and for the end user, with lot of background changes to make it work correctly, with lot of fixes after it.
Something that complex is not a small change and is not irrelevant for the topic I brought up. I made it multiple times clear now, I don’t know why you are still act like this. It’s not a definition of a term we are trying to agree, I don’t care the term.
The desktop edit change is a huge change for the developers and for the end user, with lot of background changes to make it work correctly, with lot of fixes after it.
How do you know this? The desktop edit feature was already in place. It’s not new. They refined the UI in 6.1 and made the desktop zoom out
Compared to what I am talking about it is a huge change. My suggestion is not to do this. How I know it? Because I said so. It is my suggestion. Can we stop arguing about semantics and definitions of words? That’s not the point of my suggestion.
My suggestion is to not do such big changes for 1 year and only focus on bug fixes and small changes for the developer and for the user. That’s the point. The desktop edit change is a HUGE change with new logic. It’s incredible complex compared to what I am suggesting.
I was just curious about why you think this way. It’s not a big deal to anyone except you. The KDE team already has a deadline for new feature before a big release in order to have enough time for testing and fixing. And this wasn’t a big change or new feature so they decided to implement it. It’s pretty bold to assume this was a huge change. Both of us can go check the source code but I don’t care enough to do it.
The edit mode works a lot better now and it’s not as buggy from my experience.
If you really care about stability then use Debian or any other distro that delays big updates and does backports to fixes. Exactly like you are suggesting. If you are using Arch or any other rolling release distro then this is what you signed up for.
This isn’t a joke. Often times rewriting features like this will allow the code to be more streamlined and use the latest KDE library features. This is brining new features using modern and more maintable code that solves long standing issues. Fixing the old code sometimes isn’t worth the effort for a variety of reasons (based on unmaintained libraries, the original code might have been written a while ago so it’s had many revisions of fixes that necessarily complicated the code, etc.)
You misunderstand me. They can write new code and be ready when the bug hunting phase is over. The end user only gets bug fixes. Later they can backport any new feature after the phase.
I don’t think anyone has misunderstood you here. You misunderstood what you wrote in your first comment. The new desktop edit window is not proposing any new functionality that wasn’t there, but showcasing it in a more streamlined fashion. That’s in itself refining the user experience, which is exactly what you wanted.
I don’t agree with you and explicitly listed it in my first reply as an example of what I consider a big change.
The problem here is that we are dealing in largely imprecise terms. If we instead turn to semantic versioning for inspiring what we’d consider a large change, then Plasma 5 -> 6 is a big change, breaking previous API.
The new desktop edit effect is largely irrelevant under this rather precise terminology.
It is not irrelevant to me and I made it multiple times clear. Its a suggestion by me, regardless of what terminology you use or the team uses. The desktop edit change is a big change which I suggest not to do for a year. Only bug fixes and small changes that enhance and improve usability. The desktop edit change is a huge change for the developers and for the end user, with lot of background changes to make it work correctly, with lot of fixes after it.
Something that complex is not a small change and is not irrelevant for the topic I brought up. I made it multiple times clear now, I don’t know why you are still act like this. It’s not a definition of a term we are trying to agree, I don’t care the term.
How do you know this? The desktop edit feature was already in place. It’s not new. They refined the UI in 6.1 and made the desktop zoom out
Compared to what I am talking about it is a huge change. My suggestion is not to do this. How I know it? Because I said so. It is my suggestion. Can we stop arguing about semantics and definitions of words? That’s not the point of my suggestion.
My suggestion is to not do such big changes for 1 year and only focus on bug fixes and small changes for the developer and for the user. That’s the point. The desktop edit change is a HUGE change with new logic. It’s incredible complex compared to what I am suggesting.
I was just curious about why you think this way. It’s not a big deal to anyone except you. The KDE team already has a deadline for new feature before a big release in order to have enough time for testing and fixing. And this wasn’t a big change or new feature so they decided to implement it. It’s pretty bold to assume this was a huge change. Both of us can go check the source code but I don’t care enough to do it.
The edit mode works a lot better now and it’s not as buggy from my experience.
If you really care about stability then use Debian or any other distro that delays big updates and does backports to fixes. Exactly like you are suggesting. If you are using Arch or any other rolling release distro then this is what you signed up for.