<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><base></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Following our good discussion in the last ESC meeting, we have another example of how to demotivate a new contributor.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When a easyhack no longer has “needsDevEval” and “needsUIEval” is should be considered an accepted easyhack with sufficient implementation details.</div><div class="">When a patch has been submitted to gerrit and has been reviewed (in this case it pended quite long in gerrit) and has been merged, we should not start to discuss how the implementation should be on the BZ Issue.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Of course we all learn, and sometimes when we see the effect of an implementation, we realise how it should have been done, this is natural and not a problem. BUT please do not reopen the easyhack and do not suggest to revert it, instead take the positive approach and:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">make a new easyhack, describing how the current status can be enhanced/changed.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That way we do not tell a new contributor his/hers work is rubbish (another less polite word for “revert”). Please remember the contributor did the best to follow the demands, so the problem is that the easyhack was accepted (in 2012) and nobody cared to give more implementation advice, before the work was done.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sorry for a frank mail on a friday afternoon, but this is slowly becoming a bigger problem. We have enough problems helping new contributors become skilled LO developers, there are absolutely no need to create more problems.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">rgds</div><div class="">jan I.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 14 Oct 2016, at 19:10, <a href="mailto:bugzilla-daemon@bugs.documentfoundation.org" class="">bugzilla-daemon@bugs.documentfoundation.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/" class="">
<div class=""><div class="">
<br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class="">
<b class=""><a class=" bz_status_REOPENED bz_bug_link
" title="REOPENED - Show restart message after extension installation or update menu automatically" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46279#c22">Comment # 22</a>
on <a class=" bz_status_REOPENED bz_bug_link
" title="REOPENED - Show restart message after extension installation or update menu automatically" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46279">bug 46279</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:tietze.heiko@gmail.com" title="Heiko Tietze <tietze.heiko@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Heiko Tietze</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre class="">As discussed in the UX meeting Oct/14 the recommendation is to revert the
patch; and in general to add the restart option to the extension specification.</pre>
</div><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<hr class="">
<span class="">You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul class="">
<li class="">You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>