Re: [evolution-patches] fix for bug #43241

[guenther <guenther rudersport de>]

> > The whole bug is on UI issues. Although this issue has the potential to
> > confuse users and enable them to make wrong decisions, screw up their
> > ordering and getting lost.
> 
> There should at least be a warning if Evolution is saving mail into the
> local Sent folder instead of the configured IMAP folder. Why is this not
> sufficient?

Well, this would be sufficient (for that last scenario)...


> I agree that it's a little strange -- especially in the case of a
> disabled outgoing-only account -- that it doesn't remove the option from
> the drop-down list in the From: header, but I don't think it's really
> likely to cause confusion.

... but it doesn't fix my main point: Inconsistency.

The action taken by the user is "Disabling an Account". Contrary to this
claim, the account isn't really disabled, as the user still is offered
to send mails from it.

Thus, if a user disables an account on purpose, he still has left some
vital parts of that account.


> Perhaps we could warn on _selection_ of the address, rather than on
> send?

Seems like a good idea for a happy medium.


> Removing (or hiding, or blocking the addition of) useful _features_ in
> order to avoid confusion for the non-technical users would probably
> never even have _noticed_ them seems a little over the top.

This is a more general issue. I more than once read about plans, to make
the Gnome Desktop easy -- and thus pruning features.

I personally would love to see a bunch of features. I wanna have all
possible features and settings. GConf only would make me happy, too. But
this is getting OT.


> What are you going to do next? Come to my house and observe I haven't
> got a doorbell, claim it might confuse people and hence remove the front
> door?

Nope. Sticking to this metaphor: I would file a bug about the sign
labeled "ring here" without a bell attached to it. Cause the sign should
read "please knock" or the missing bell should be added. The door itself
is fine. ;)


> > If this bug shall not be fixed due to veto by the responsible persons, I
> > can live with it...
> 
> I don't have a veto -- I'm just heckling. :)

Yep, I know -- both parts.

The veto and in fact my post 2 days ago where mainly aimed toward Anna.
I wanted to know if the user feedback is done and whether the existing
patch may go into the forthcoming 1.4.5 release.


> It's not me you have to convince. 

I don't want to. But as I see, you are relying on this "feature", I am
about to stop pushing this issue. The bug will stay, though.

...guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0  ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}