[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Libreoffice] Fwd: [PATCH] Bug 39167
jengab at elte.hu
Fri Aug 5 13:39:54 PDT 2011
Should the patch for the second version of the problem postponed? I am
almost done with a patch that could do the job for extensions, I only
have the problem that I have already mentioned yesterday. So, should I
concentrate on another topic?
2011. 08. 05. 21:22 keltezéssel, Kohei Yoshida írta:
> Hi Gerald,
> First of all, thanks for introducing yourself on this list. I've been
> personally wondering who you were since you've filed several EasyHack
> bugs and I never saw your name or your email address here before.
> I'll leave the specific enhancement request discussion to the UX folks,
> but let me address several of your expectations below.
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 16:59 +0200, Gerald Leppert wrote:
>> Generally, my experience with enhancement requests in the LO bugzilla
>> (mine or requests from others) has been that there is currently very
>> little to no feed back, review, discussion or comments made to
>> enhancement requests. IMHO this situation is a bit sad and I hope that
>> this will be changing in the future.
> Normally we don't respond to RFE's filed in bugzilla with enthusiasm
> unless there is a sign that the proposer is willing to invest
> development resources to help bring the RFE into fruition. We already
> receive an abundance of feature requests, and we simply don't have
> resources to respond to each and every one of them.
> So, I don't want you to have the expectation that, if you file an RFE,
> someone else will magically pick it up and make it happen. That's very
> very rare.
>> Improvements to hybrid PDF: As mentioned in the bug 39168, the hybrid
>> PDF feature is one of the killer features in LibreOffice. However, its
>> implementation has some practical and usability problems out of those
>> most had been already raised in the OpenOffice.org bugzilla. However,
>> most of them can be easily improved in terms of usability and handling.
>> This was my intention of the three enhancement requests made to hybrid
>> PDFs (bug 39167, bug 39168, bug 39169) and I was glad that Gabor liked
>> the idea and took the initiative to start working on two of these easy
>> Defending bug 39168: As described in the bug entry, the current file
>> ending "pdf" is suboptimal and hybrid PDFs need to be made more visible
>> to the user. In the current situation, the hybrid PDF feature is much
>> less useful than it could be and in many cases it is even
>> counterproductive (i.e. users who try to open 'real' PDF files in
>> LibreOffice assuming that they are hybrid PDFs.) There is indeed no hint
>> to the user what file actually is hybrid pdf. By the way, the file
>> ending ".pap.pdf" is exactly how it is handled in Papyrus
>> (www.papyrus.de) where the idea of hybrid PDFs was first implemented.
>> Marking bug 39168 as 'invalid' without adding any criticism or comment
>> to the bug entry itself is - in my opinion - inappropriate.
> I personally don't object to your argument for the double extension, but
> I'd like to leave it to the UX folks to decide what would be the good
> Having said that, I'm not pleased to see someone mis-using our EasyHack
> system to inject his/her favorite features. EasyHack is designed to
> help new developers get a feel for our code base, and is supposed to be
> easy enough and/or have someone willing to provide code pointers&
> mentorship etc. It is not designed for the end users to submit his or
> her favorite pet peeves. If you file one, you are basically signing up
> to mentor for the implementation of that feature, either fully or
> So, my question is, are you familiar enough with the code base to help
> Jenei work on this?
More information about the Libreoffice-ux-advise