| |||||||||||
Changing backgroundsChanging backgroundsPosted Apr 28, 2008 12:54 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: Changing backgrounds by russell Parent article: The Grumpy Editor encounters the Hardy Heron
Yes. Plain and simple yes. If doing that USED to work, but doesn't work TODAY, then it is a regression. It matters not how the developers, or anyone else, INTENDED it to work, what matters is actual behaviour. Actual behaviour is that right-clicking the desktop and setting the wallpaper USED to work, even for people without Nautilus running. Today it no longer works. That is a regression. It's not a major issue or anything, not as if this makes the computer unusable, but a regression nevertheless.
(Log in to post comments)
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 28, 2008 19:40 UTC (Mon) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link] Hehe, talking of regressions, you'd like KDE 4.0 ;-) More serious, this is a weird thing. I would personally say it's good to reuse code (use Nautilus code to paint the background) but it was done wrong (needs Nautilus running somehow). Should be factored out in a common library, I would presume. Imho despite all it's shortcomings, KDE does things better in this regard - the infrastructure is in order. Let's see if our Grumpy friend will get acquainted with KDE again when 4.1 is out - see if he likes it.
Changing backgrounds Posted Apr 29, 2008 6:09 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] I personally don't mind minor regressions much. I deal, and like our grumpy editor I like living on the edge, and I'm fully aware that that means suffering bruises and cuts every now and then. I was just responding to the (imho!) very misguided idea that something that stops working somehow isn't a regression if the developer never "intended" it to work in the first place. I do indeed like KDE4, bugs and all.
|
|||||||||||