To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=50690
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 16 06:38:48 -0700
2005 -------
SBA->peschtra, cloph:
YES, we could provide a "100 pager explanation" composed by a dozen developers
on every issue. It would sound polite, explain it all, and - believe it or not -
cost a lot of time.
Please notice that there is a "slight imbalance" between the people filing
issues and those who take care of them. Therefore we (at SUN) appreciate all OOo
contributors that help us with the overwhelming amount of issues that get
written (Thanks a lot, Cloph!).
After processing some 800? 2000? (I didn't count but this is MY JOB to read and
proceed the issues in my area for some years doing QA now), I can tell you that
there will always be a cetain percentage of people who expect that EVERY issue
gets solved. Forget it... :-(
A software with this amount of code HAD, HAS and always WILL HAVE bugs. I'm
talking about BUGS, not even "behavior worth to discuss" or "non-intuitive
behavior" - It should be obvious that "intuitive" or "expected" is something
very much attached to personal experiences and expectations. ONE software for a
million users can NEVER fulfill all expectations that will occur. The balance
between "impact" (of the behavior) and "effort" (to change it) is another issue
that can be commented by a developer that knows the respective code area and
dependencies only.
Thus, the trick is to focus on "important" things. And this is where the trouble
begins. What is "Important"? - Most contributors regard THEIR very issue as THE
most important issue. I do exeggerate, but my personal statistics prove me
right. Even experienced QA folks or developers themselves show this phenomen
when they "run into something" while using the Office: ("...a known bug that
won't get fixed - unbelievable...")
I read many "outcries" like yours when people find "THE" (their) issue gets
closed. If one has "the small picture" only (like "I know every word written
about the eleven issues I filed and I'm not tinterested in other people's
problems"), than these folks easily get angry if "someone" tells them "There is
bigger fish to catch". Welcome to this world, but indeed, there is bigger fish
to catch than this triple-click behavior with sentences that do not start with a
capitalized word.
If it makes you happy, I could provide another reason for "Wontfix" than Cloph's
"barbarian" explenation "Mind-reading excluded": No SUN developer ressources
will be available to deal with this for YEARS to come. Would that have made you
happy? - I strongly doubt it.
The good nwes is, that indeed EVERY tiny inconvenience, every little
"not-my-mind-reading issue", every "This-is-how-I-WANT-to-work-with-the-office"
can be solved. All it takes is a developer willing and able to do it.
So just "Bring em on" and you get an office that indeed "reads YOUR mind" (while
being "not exactly ituitive" to the rest of the world). After all,
OpenOffice.org is a perfect platform for taylor-made office derivates that can
even turn every user error into "expected outcome". All it takes is a developer
with [spare or paid] time.
Thank you for your comprehension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
