https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
--- Comment #5 from Nate Graham ---
Hmm, it's hard for me to imagine that omitting the comment could possibly look
worse than jamming the entire description into the comment, losing most of it
because of eliding, and having no description at all.
But I
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
Aleix Pol changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
Nate Graham changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://phabricator.kde.org
|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
--- Comment #3 from Nate Graham ---
Er, I mean https://phabricator.kde.org/T8137
Until that's changed (or if it's declined), perhaps we should simply omit the
Comment field in Discover for resources that don't provide that information.
Trying to synthe
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
--- Comment #2 from Nate Graham ---
Is the short summary/comment field not mandatory for KNS items? If it isn't, we
should consider making it mandatory, because otherwise clients like Discover
are going to display ugly-mis-formatted content forever. Per
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391188
Aleix Pol changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |C
