[mythtv-users] cutlist editing hangs frontend
cas at taz.net.au
Sun Nov 14 02:42:08 UTC 2010
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 04:36:08PM -0800, Robert McNamara wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> > it's really nice when users feel unable to make any comment that might
> > possibly be taken as some form of criticism. who wants to foster an open
> > communication and feedback process, anyway?
> > but really - feedback is not an insult even if it isn't entirely
> > positive. negative feedback is also valuable. it's called constructive
> > criticism. it's intended to help improve the software. sometimes by
> > providing a POV that a developer hadn't thought of.
> Personally I find it amusing that when confronted with the same sort
> of zealous reaction you yourself used, that it's someone else who is
> to blame.
what 'zealous reaction you yourself used' are you talking about?
i wrote a brief list of changes in the new 0.24 cutlist editor, that
i consider to be detrimental rather than beneficial. that's hardly a
there was no insult or personal attack. it wasn't a flame, and it wasn't
even harshly worded. it was just a list.
the response i got was a hypersensitive interpretation of my feedback as
an insulting personal attack - this seems unfortunately common on myth
which, as i said, tends to stifle feedback except from everyone except
groveling sycophants (who do *NOTHING* to improve anything - if devs
don't get negative feedback along with positive they'll never know that
there's a problem, so it won't get fixed).
> Constructive criticism is something delicate, and something
> which is given in a genuine, thoughtful, and sensitive manner. That's
> how it goes from "baseless" to "constructive."
frankly, you wouldn't have a damn clue what constructive feedback
is because you interpret anything that isn't abject grovelling at the
awesomeness of mythtv and it's deific devs as being an attack by a
constructive feedback includes pointing out the bad, as well as the good.
> If you'd like your comments to be taken seriously, then calmly and
> dispassionately explain what you liked about the old one, and which
> changes in the new editor have caught you by surprise, and and solicit
> feedback about why the changes were made.
and my list of points didn't do that? where and how wasn't i calm or
it seems to me that you're the one getting all worked up here - going on
the attack to 'defend' someone else.
don't try to rewrite history to make it sound like i made some kind
of aggresive attack, when what i posted was a calmly worded list of
bulletpoints summarising the negative changes.
> [ blah blah blah ]
i lost interest in actually reading the rest of your self-serving
twaddle at this point. it looked like more of the usual 'how dare
you say mythtv isn't perfection itself?' crap designed to discourage
> I won't bother responding to your other e-mail, I'm not interested in
> perpetuating childishness.
nice one. i love a good bit of self-deprecating irony.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
More information about the mythtv-users