> Patches are always welcome and might be considered by the main authors.
Please accept that not everyone in the world who makes valid
suggestions for improvements in open source applications can instantly
take part in the application he wants to improve. "Patches welcome" is
just saying "I don't care". I know I could create patches, but despite
my dedication to free and open source software, I don't have time, and
in this case I even doubt to be familiar enough with the development
environment, to do it.
> However, repeatedly asking for a change without valid arguments or without
> at least some evidence of widespread use is not likely to improve the
> chances of getting the change accepted.
Pleas explain how I neither made "valid arguments" nor "evidence of
widespread use". The Windows User Experience Guidelines are quite some
evidence and also contain a lot of screenshots/examples.
I did make valid arguments, I also was very specific about the issues
and changes required. So please be just as specific as me in
explaining why suggestions are insufficiently presented. I'll be happy
to explain more if you tell me what you need to know.
> This isn't really a bug, so any change won't make it into 1.7.x anyway.
Well...I'd certainly consider this a bug if such UI were present in MS
Office. The UI is funcational, yes, but that doesn't make it
> But I'll change it soon on trunk, just haven't had the time to start on this.
Thanks. You can also just revert to the previous message boxes in
these two cases if that makes it easier for you.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-11-07 13:57:38 CET