None of the argumentation that I here offer asks any changes or delay into what is going into 0.6.
It only looks to help re-weigh options going forward and, on occasion, a poke in jest. :-)
On 2010-01-21, at 1:45 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> when a problem crops up but the
> client was not run in debugging mode... it won't be
> reproducible either :-)
Non-reproducible problems if infrequent & trivial may need no solving.
Frequent becomes reproducible. Serious has its own importance. I start becoming less concerned about a user who does not *care* to assist the problem solving when it could be done by:
a) accepting to run in debug mode or (if that would slow performance)
b) alter (or, more easily, switch to) a form template to always shows the placeholder
> I don't really see how the now-tiny reference would confuse
> matters. I should believe someone being confused by that
> (mind you, *wondering* about it is another matter) should
> easily be confused by lesser things, no ?
I get confused by lesser things and would prefer to avoid that confusion ;-)
tiny helps but, to the end user, still appears administrivia (clutter)
(e.g. why not include a grocery list)?
there is a distinction between what a programmer desires and what the end-user should see as relevant to *their* purpose.
>> If the page *will* print and the user is in any way
>> dissatisfied, there is nothing wrong with requiring them to
>> launch another client instance in debug mode and re-generate
>> the same output except this time the template reference
>> should appear.
>
> Well, "requiring the user to help with debugging" is
> something way beyond many users (apart from those partaking
> in this list).
Those not partaking in the list will almost surely have to have some source of support if they are to run GNUmed and when dissatisfied (or experiencing any problems) will surely be advised by said supporters "look, if you want the problem addressed you will need to describe the problem to us and much as it may pain you to do so, you are going to have to check that 'debug' box (or click a different template selection in the dialog)
> I will, however, not add another placeholder before 0.6.
No contest.
> My above also tried to say: there's a way but it's harder
> than what I currently care for doing.
+1
> I am all for avoiding disturbance but the ROI in light of
> 0.6.0 needs to be considered.
+1
> Also, if TeX says the footnote should be separated by a
> not-quite-page-width line I am rather sure there's a good
> reason (which one may not need to agree to, of course).
+1