https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120897
--- Comment #38 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #37) > Tamás please submit to master, once available across modules IFF it needs > additional revision(s) for related issues on the meta, we can evaluate and > provide feedback. Tamás had the good sense to realize that if there is disagreement, it should be addressed rather than ignored, and he has written the design mailing list to solicit feedback; I encourage you, and the other CCed here, to oblige that request. Whether the result of that discussion will better agree with my position or not, it will certainly get more eyes and minds on the issue. This would be different than in the design meeting from 2018, where user interest in the grid being subtle rather than grabbing attention was not discussed nor mentioned (at least, not in the minutes). Unless there is some urgent need in rushing a change right now - why, Stuart, would you be pushing Tamás in that direction? What is the benefit in doing that? I suppose maybe it is, after all, relevant to expand a little about the active cell rectangle 'saga': ----- The design choices for the active cell rectangle are a delicate trade-off of benefits and detriments. At some point, bug 143733 was filed, complaining about the way we were drawing the rectangle. But the complaint, or the suggestion, was interpreted in a very specific and narrow way, in an implementation of a change. That change - despite its massive effect on how Calc would look - did not undergo serious discussion before a patch was submitted and merged, and then - users, including those of nightlies and QA contributors - were flabbergasted to see their selection rectangle messed up in a bad way. Bug 161709 was submitted, with harsh language about the change; and bug 161740 (which I submitted), noting how content of adjacent cells was now hidden sometimes; and a third dupe, bug 162624, asking for the change to be made optional. In parallel, there were informal requests to back out the change, which were met with resistance, considering the effort which had already gone into the change, suggesting that we wait and see, and even claims that the issues brought up are actually "solved", when they weren't. At some point, people noticed that even the suggestion of the original bug reporter did not agree with what had been committed. Eventually, continuing defense of the committed change became untenable, and the belated discussion brought its proponents to adopt the position of its critics (and the position originally expressed in bug 143733) - and the rectangle was redone differently. But along the way, the were a lot of flak and acrimony which would have been spared, had the matter been handled differently, and had a change likely to be at least contentious not been rushed. ------- What I was saying earlier is that we should do better this time. Let's find a way to satisfy more (or all) of the users - rather than to shut people up by getting to a state where the commit has already happened. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
