On Sunday 02 October 2011 10:48:45 todd rme wrote: > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Zander <zan...@kde.org> wrote: > >> The part that I think is confusing is to make is so that one changes the > >> way power management works in some cases so that it's not in power > >> management. It's going to confuse approximately everyone who cares that > >> is not a KDE devloper. It may be that few enough people care that > >> aren't involved in KDE development that that's OK, but this is really > >> counter-intuitive. > > > > I think nobody here is going to tell you that its indeed change, there > > will be a change in what some people need to do. Hell, you might even > > have to start using activities! But its good change, change that makes > > the mental load less after the initial hump. > > > > At the same time it should be stressed that if you don't have any > > advanced- power management requirements, the only change you will notice > > is that you need to care even less about the power management as more is > > done automatically for you. > > I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't allow users to tie > power management to activities. I think the point is we shouldn't > require it. Of course integrating the power management with activites > make sense, but I don't think making that the only way to configure > your power profiles makes sense. That is the point of disagreement > here.
And this is the part nobody is apparently getting. We are not forcing anybody into using activities, as all the use cases for changing a profile manually are actually non-existent. All the profiles for battery states will be there and will be editable, and temporary inhibition (equivalent to a presentation/movie profile) will be provided by the applet instead of the profile combobox. > > -Todd -- ------------------- Dario Freddi KDE Developer GPG Key Signature: 511A9A3B
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
