Last minute Nautilus change for Fedora 9

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 01:13 +0100, Mark wrote:
> 2008/3/8, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com>:
> > Here's a little secret..setting a severity higher as the reporter
> >  doesn't mean a maintainer will agree that your issue is of significant
> >  severity to be bumped up in the priority list.  Don't get your
> >  feathers ruffled if noone responds any faster if you set the severity
> >  to high.  It's not a crasher or dataloss issue, so don't expect anyone
> >  to put this sort of issue ahead of things like that.  I personally
> >  would consider setting this to a high severity as an abuse of bugzilla
> >  reporting, and if you did it to a bug against one of my packages I'd
> >  pretty much instantly make a point of remembering that I need to
> >  re-calibrate any high severity reports from you as low severity... but
> >  that's just me.
> 
> it was just a _question_ calm down.

Everybody's calm here, Jeff is just trying to give you some insight into
the way the bug recipient thinks.  You could take the fact that he
answered you at great length as a sign of feeling it was worth his time
to carry on the conversation. ;-)  Many people here are passionate about
the details, don't sweat it.

> >  There is a desktop list..specifically for discussion of desktop issues
> >  that require discussion.
> >  I think you jumped the gun a little bit by calling for a vote before
> >  making the effort to discuss this on the desktop-list.
> 
> Sorry, didn't realize. And i don't have ALL the fedora lists in my
> gmail to mail to.. gmails space is limited you know ;) but i believe i
> can send mails to those lists without subscribing right?

I've got about 24 fedora-* mailing lists coming in, and no end to my
storage in sight, I'd say you should keep subscribing! :-D

> >  Calling for votes like this before an appropriate discussion in the
> >  appropriate location (desktop-list in this case, if the maintainer
> >  doesn't respond in a timely manner..give it a week).. reeks of an
> >  effort to abuse governance structures to force the introduction of pet
> >  features. And I have a big problem with that, and I make absolutely no
> >  excuses for coming down hard on people who do it... because it needs
> >  to be done to discourage a tidal wave of other people from doing it
> >  for their pet features and bogging down structures like fesco with
> >  wasting time on this sort of stuff.
> 
> I already agreed on that all. no need to repeat yourself. You where
> clear the first time.

We all have different ways of "speaking" tonally in emails.  I suggest a
sort of sedative filter for everyone, lest you be unduly ruffled by
someone else's tone.  We're all here because we care.

To stay a little on the topic, though, I have to say that I've never
been bothered by having larger thumbnails than icons, and find them very
useful.  Unviewables like folders ought to be small, since they are
easily identified contextually by their icons, and the name is the only
real differentiator.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080308/70e78180/attachment.sig>