I think it would help to open an issue on github making explicit the following three points explicit in the report:
- steps to reproduce from scratch;
- what you expected to happen;
- what you actually observed (include the screenshot or video capture in addition to a textual description).
Otherwise, you might risk your report being ignored due to a silent misunderstanding about the mismatch between your expectations and the actual results.
At the time i wasn't sure if it was PEBCAK, which is why i started a discussion in the forums. As there were no replies, i received no notifications, and so I forgot all about it.
Personally, I do not understand why you think there is a bug from this screen capture alone. Maybe because I am that familiar with penpot and figma, but still, I do not find it obvious.
This is why it's important to describe explicitly the three points in text:
- steps to reproduce;
- what you expected to happen;
- what actual result you observe instead.
Something that might be obvious to you but isn't for others will just be silently ignored most of the time.
EDIT: I now see the problem after reading your other reply above:
This is why it's important to describe explicitly the difference between what you expected and what you observed. I swear I did not see the change in button width before reading the linked comment.
> There's actually a lot more visual changes than that just the button, but I will leave that to the reader as an exercise in spot-the-difference ;)
This is fair. But issues like this will never get my attention in general because I don’t have time to do this exercise - I would much rather have it all spelled out. Even if there are a bunch of related issues they won’t get fixed in a single PR, it likely will be multiple.
I guess my point is that if you really want OSS projects to improve, the issue submitter can’t just ask the maintainer “figure it out”. It totally works this way in the corporate world though (IME).
Edit: I’m sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Leaving my comment up for accountability.
I didn’t ask the maintainer to “figure it out”. I posted a thread in the forum with multiple videos to start a discussion.
People here have stated I should have filed on GitHub, and because I don’t want to link my GitHub to this account I suggested someone else do it.
That was 6 hours ago, and people are still commenting about my lack of a suitable report rather than actually reporting it correctly themselves - as is evident by the lack of a new issue on the github.
> I swear I did not see the change in button width before reading the linked comment.
I didn’t either! I stared at that gif for a few minutes and I couldn’t tell what the problem is (or what to look for). It wasn’t until you said “changing button width” I knew where to focus my attention.
I hate how every time someone even talks about an issue with an open source project, some smart alec replies "well did you raise an issue?" - or worse - "did you send a PR to fix it?".
We are all very aware how bug reporting works. And user criticism of bugs isn't somehow invalidated just because the users didn't go to the sometimes very large effort to report bugs.
I wouldn't have reported this bug either. If the example documents are getting corrupted just by navigating them that indicates that it's just a really buggy project (corroborated by other comments here) that I'm not even going to use, so why would I spend my time working on it?
I opened an issue based on the discussion here and it didn't take much time or effort.
(It was one of those form-based issue templates that requires you to explicitly list out Steps to Reproduce, Expected behavior, Actual behavior, OS version, etc. which IMO causes slightly more friction for anyone who knows how to put together a good bug report, but I've also seen enough poorly-specified issues to know that it's necessary sometimes)
I can see both sides of the dilemma and I don't necessarily like when a maintainer defaults to "open a PR" but asking for a reproducible issue wherever requested is not too much to ask.
With a PR I understand not wanting to put the effort in as it may not be merged. But offering up a reproducible example on the correct forum is the least you could do. If you want the problem fixed that's the best way forward.
> This system won't run FIFA, GTA Online, Battlefield, Valorant or CoD, it's a nonstarter for many.
That's largely known now but still a bummer.
I wonder if anything will ever change in this area and if Valve will be able to pressure game editors or create an anti-cheat so good and for any platform to be able to change something.
In some (most?) EU countries the head of the state or government is not elected directly, but even then is elected in the parliament and without continuous parliament majority support is unable to effectively govern.
This is not the case for the EU institutions, where the EP is the least powerful body by far. While the EP 'elects' the head of the Commission and confirms the members, it does not choose them. It is not possible to be elected head of the Commission without being nominated by the European Council. This is so far removed from a democratic process we can't really call it an election.
I'm interested too. I'm using a Go program that call a cpp library with SWING and I was interested in find out if that library had a memory leak, or maybe the SWING wrap I wrote. But this kind of problem can't be detected via pprof, so I tought, what if Go support Valgrind?? and find out this changes.
I'm not sure if this will work though, will it @bracewel?
In the meantime you had for years a car without connecting your iphone, so you completely didn't have that feature!
There are pros and cons everywhere, but I'm more prone to change often and fix things that wait for feature to be stable and meantime do without them.
Of course, when I can afford it, e.g. not in changing my car every two years :')
I'd like to do this but I need some more hardware.
I'm thinking to buy a Mikrotik hAP Ax3 Router WiFi 6 or a more expensive Turris Omnia or MOX... The standard home routers doesn't have those features!
For IOT AP I use an old olinuxino with MT7612U 2.4G wifi dongle running Arch Linux ARM as most of my wifi iot devices run on 2.4Ghz wifi anyway.
Then I have a normal wifi in a ASUS PRIME N100I-D D4 x86 low power mobo which I also use as a media box. It has a Mediatek mt7916 wifi 6e-capable (but running wifi 6 currently anyway) M.2 card by AsiaRF in a short cable extender. I took a long time to find a well-supported wifi card.
Then I have a third box which is also a router and has normal 5GHz AP. It also hosts a radius daemon used by all APs which assigns MAC addresses to VLANs, optionally forces them to their unique passphrases. All boxes are connected by LAN cables.
It works perfectly with no issues but it took gradual smaller improvements over many days until I ended up with this setup. It would also be possible to cram everything into a single box if the area to be covered isn't very large.
reply