>the comment was not especially about your contribution but a note for the people ranting on this bug, your comment upstream is mostly constructive though nobody claims to know better, whoever is writting the software is just free to take the choice he wants for his code and being agressive to convince him to change is not really good.
I am sorry that I took it personally, but you replied to me talking about "my strategy" so I inferred you were discussing about my personal doing. I agree that flaming and ranting will lead to nothing. I also agree that developers are free to do what they like, that's why discussion is the only option in this case. The fix is there, what lacks is convincing the developers it's worth inclusion in rhythmbox. I agree that being aggressive is not a good thing, but it is understandable given the history of this issue. >I've to admit I also have difficulties to get why users go in flame mode for such a detail, clicking on the icon is not that hard, is it? I've to admint I also have difficulties to get why developers go in flame mode for such a detail, adding an option is not that hard, is it? Not to mention that I am used to have this behaviour with all my other applications with a persistent notification icon and it is difficult to remember "oh, this is rhythmbox, don't do what you usually do, instead do something completely different!" when you are clicking away your window. For sure it is annoying, but probably you don't understand this because you have different habits. The fact the problem for you is irrelevant does not mean it is irrelevant for everybody else. By the way I agree that this should be fixed upstream with an option somewhere. Lacking this, including the patch in ubuntu is better than nothing. Also, the idea of the common behaviour for GNOME is nice, but let's say that they decide ok, all the applications should behave like A. All the users who like the behaviour of application B will be disappointed when it gets changed to behave like A. Of course if you reverse it it is the same, users of A will be disappointed. I understand there are cases in which it is clear which is the right way, but this is not, since a lot of different people seem to know a different right way: I'd say in this case, stick with a default coherent behaviour and give choice to the user who wants a different thing. -- Window close should close, not quit https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/38512 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Desktop Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
