[Pidgin] #4986: automatic chat input field resizing should be optional, regression from 2.3

[Pidgin]

#4986: automatic chat input field resizing should be optional, regression from 2.3
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  swbrown       |       Owner:                   
      Type:  enhancement   |      Status:  closed           
  Priority:  minor         |   Milestone:                   
 Component:  pidgin (gtk)  |     Version:  2.4.0            
Resolution:  wontfix       |    Keywords:  chat input resize
   Pending:  0             |  
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment (by Ionic):

 Replying to [comment:253 ionoff]:
 > Boo, will this be rejected if I make the change and post it for
 inclusion?
 >
 > It is not worth the time to make a change just to have it rejected, and
 not worth the effort to fork to keep up the project.
 >
 > I have been screwed in the past having to maintain a project fork just
 to add features that were removed.

 Replying to [comment:253 ionoff]:
 > Boo, will this be rejected if I make the change and post it for
 inclusion?

 Yes, it will.

 The problem is not that the developers could not make it an option, but
 rather that they do not want. In fact, the old behavior is still out
 there, when thinking of the code. Surely it would not be too difficult to
 check for an option and depending on this change the handling.

 The most difficult part here is, was, and will be the mentality of people.
 Heck yes, they even hacked proprietary protocols. It should be no problem
 to implement such a feature. But rather than that, some people like to
 waste their time with other stuff...


 Replying to [comment:257 EvilJohn]:
 >Lame Choice. Lame attitude. Fun Pidgin it is. This project should be
 renamed "facist pidgin" so the users don't get confused.

 To be honest, I as a Pidgin developer would not do that either, when I see
 SUCH comments.
 People should stay on topic and '''not''' insult the ones doing all the
 work.

 See, if there is nothing but rants, would you still have the desire of
 doing somethings for those users and users in general?

 I would not, YMMV.

 The same thing goes to mlsterben etc. There is no point in leaving such
 comments here, rather than it will fix developers to their decision just
 more.


 Replying to [comment:247 hbons]
 >Wow that's really nice of you! Now only the developers need to code this
 right? I can't believe >some of the attitudes in here.

 I do not see the problem. As you said yourself, it would be not a piece of
 hard work for them. They even still have the code of the old behavior, so
 there would be no complete rewrite needed.
 Which attitude should we show? '''Even you''' have said, that...

 Replying to [comment:251 hbons]
 >Well I certainly can't because I'm not a programmer. :) Technical
 problems are almost never the >reason. You really think the devs can
 reverse engineer secret propietary protocols and not make >it an option in
 preferences?

 this would be no problem, but what then?

 -Ionic

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986#comment:258>
Pidgin <http://pidgin.im>
Pidgin