On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Anthony Lieuallen wrote:
On 02/03/11 17:45, Matt Sargent wrote:
Also, I update any of these scripts I now have to remember to
copy my
old set of includes and paste them into the new one.
This was always true, even before this change.
I'm pretty sure previously you could edit a script, and not lose the
includes and excludes that you had added via the script manager.
Ah, this depends on what you mean by "update". I had read it as
"install a new version of the script".
Also, that "success rate" is bogus. Problems won't start cropping up
until people install updates to existing scripts, which could be
weeks
or months down the road.
My point is that relatively few people are complaining about changes
to the include/exclude UI because relatively few people use it at all.
First, I want to say that I am very appreciative for the existence of
Greasemonkey, and grateful for the effort that the developers have put
into it over the years. Browsers are no longer just "viewers" of
content, but powerful manipulators of it: a great win for the web.
That said, Anthony's "I've only heard from a few people" argument
doesn't cut it. The people who are providing feedback about it
("complaining") are the very people who have assured its place in the
software firmament. We've talked up Greasemonkey, stayed with it
through major security flaws (and, in some cases, contributed to their
resolution). Because we take the time to respond (as opposed to the
masses who likely installed it to run a single script and have never
looked at it again), we would have been delighted to contribute to a
better solution than just nuking it. Some, evidently, lost losing
years of creating and curating include/exclude lists through the old UI.
The same UI could have been extended to read/write the include/exclude
lists of installed scripts. The UI didn't have to be scrapped along
with the config.xml file: it could have been developed into a "script
header editor" that modified the relevant parts of the scripts.
A one-time upgrade process could have migrated the include/exclude
data from the config.xml to the headers of the relevant scripts,
eliminating that "one-time event" dismissed earlier.
Bottom line: asking for help from the community about such a major
change to GM might have been a better way to go than just springing it
on everyone.
Dave
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"greasemonkey-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
