Jenkins-kde-ci: kdelibs KDE-4.14 stable-qt4 ยป Linux,gcc - Build # 52 - Still Unstable!
GENERAL INFO BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL: https://build.kde.org/job/kdelibs%20KDE-4.14%20stable-qt4/PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc/52/ Project: PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc Date of build: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 07:23:05 + Build duration: 17 min CHANGE SET Revision 52d0a81376e95e7d800f79faca363bdbeabcdfc1 by scripty: (SVN_SILENT made messages (.desktop file)) change: edit kparts/tests/notepad.desktop change: edit knotify/tests/knotifytest.notifyrc JUNIT RESULTS Name: (root) Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 163 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 164 test(s)Failed: TestSuite.kdecore-kmimetype_nomimetypes COBERTURA RESULTS Cobertura Coverage Report By packages
Re: Review Request 122249: libksysguard: add Kill Window to End Process button and show correct keyboard shortcut
> On April 20, 2015, 10:36 p.m., Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > > What would likely be confusing is that the two button modes have different > > interaction flows: The "End Process" mode requires to first select a > > process and then press the button to work, whereas the "Kill specific > > window" mode requires to first press the button and then select the window > > to kill, and users have no easy way to understand how each one works and > > why they work differently. > > > > The ellipsis in the label "End Process..." adds to that confusion. It > > indicates that further input is necessary before the action can take > > effect. While the button does open a dialog to confirm killing the selected > > process, ellipses are actually reserved for actions where a dialog asks for > > new information, such as the "Save As..." button, not for actions that > > require confirmation. > > > > To avoid this confusion, it should be possible to also click "End > > Process..." even if no processes has been selected, whuch would then ask > > the user to select the process to kill. This could theoretically be done > > similarly to the "Kill specific window" function: Click the "End > > Process..." button and then click the process in the list that you want to > > end. Alternatively, if no process had been selected when "End Process..." > > is clicked, a dialog could be opened where the process to kill would be > > selected. Of course the current flow of ending a process could and should > > still work. > > Gregor Mi wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! The ellipsis in "End Process..." is the original > design. According to your explanation this was wrong in the first place. What > about removing the ellipses in both menu items so we will end up with "End > Process" and "Kill a specific window"? > > Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > "Kill specific window" does always need additional input until it really > does something, doesn't it? As I understood it merely changes the cursor to > the kill cursor and then the user has to select the window to kill, right? > > Gregor Mi wrote: > Erm, right. To be exact, "Kill specific window..." only shows a message > box. But in the end - after the user presses the keyboard shortcut - the user > has to select a window. So this seems to be a special case. The intention > behind all this is to increase the discoverability of the hidden xkill > feature. > > Gregor Mi wrote: > > To avoid this confusion, it should be possible to also click "End > Process..." even if no processes has been selected, whuch would then ask the > user to select the process to kill. > > If "End Process" is clicked with no processes selected, there will be a > message box which says that the user has to select one more more processes > first. > > > This could theoretically be done similarly to the "Kill specific > window" function: Click the "End Process..." button and then click the > process in the list that you want to end. > > I think "Kill specific windows" should be considered as the special case > here. Changing or extending the "End Process" workflow would introduce more > complexity to the code. > > > Alternatively, if no process had been selected when "End Process..." is > clicked, a dialog could be opened where the process to kill would be > selected. Of course the current flow of ending a p>rocess could and should > still work. > > This would be a topic for another RR. > > Summary of final changes for this RR: > > - I would change the "End Process..." to "End Process" (remove ellipsis). > Ok? > - I am not sure if the ellipsis of "Kill specific window..." should be > removed or not. > > Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > To be honest: The more I think about this feature, the less sense it > makes to me in general. > What is XKill's usecase anyway? If an application works normally, one can > just quit it normally. If an application is frozen, KWin quite reliably > detects that when trying to close the window and allows to kill the process. > Usually "End process" is used for applications that do not have a window > (either because they don't have a GUI in the first place or because the > window has disappeared but the process is still there), in which case xkill > would not help anyway. > Yes, there may be some situations where it's useful, but they are really > corner cases. Yes, very few people know it's there, but very few people miss > the function, either. I heve never wished there was a way to hard kill a > window without using the Close button in the windeco, and I have never met > one who did. > > So we're complicating the GUI with a split button only to explain a > feature to users which the vast majority of them don't need in the first > place. > > If I have missed the "killer usecase for xkill" which makes it necessary > to make it a lot more visible
Re: Review Request 122249: libksysguard: add Kill Window to End Process button and show correct keyboard shortcut
> On April 20, 2015, 10:36 p.m., Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > > What would likely be confusing is that the two button modes have different > > interaction flows: The "End Process" mode requires to first select a > > process and then press the button to work, whereas the "Kill specific > > window" mode requires to first press the button and then select the window > > to kill, and users have no easy way to understand how each one works and > > why they work differently. > > > > The ellipsis in the label "End Process..." adds to that confusion. It > > indicates that further input is necessary before the action can take > > effect. While the button does open a dialog to confirm killing the selected > > process, ellipses are actually reserved for actions where a dialog asks for > > new information, such as the "Save As..." button, not for actions that > > require confirmation. > > > > To avoid this confusion, it should be possible to also click "End > > Process..." even if no processes has been selected, whuch would then ask > > the user to select the process to kill. This could theoretically be done > > similarly to the "Kill specific window" function: Click the "End > > Process..." button and then click the process in the list that you want to > > end. Alternatively, if no process had been selected when "End Process..." > > is clicked, a dialog could be opened where the process to kill would be > > selected. Of course the current flow of ending a process could and should > > still work. > > Gregor Mi wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! The ellipsis in "End Process..." is the original > design. According to your explanation this was wrong in the first place. What > about removing the ellipses in both menu items so we will end up with "End > Process" and "Kill a specific window"? > > Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > "Kill specific window" does always need additional input until it really > does something, doesn't it? As I understood it merely changes the cursor to > the kill cursor and then the user has to select the window to kill, right? > > Gregor Mi wrote: > Erm, right. To be exact, "Kill specific window..." only shows a message > box. But in the end - after the user presses the keyboard shortcut - the user > has to select a window. So this seems to be a special case. The intention > behind all this is to increase the discoverability of the hidden xkill > feature. > > Gregor Mi wrote: > > To avoid this confusion, it should be possible to also click "End > Process..." even if no processes has been selected, whuch would then ask the > user to select the process to kill. > > If "End Process" is clicked with no processes selected, there will be a > message box which says that the user has to select one more more processes > first. > > > This could theoretically be done similarly to the "Kill specific > window" function: Click the "End Process..." button and then click the > process in the list that you want to end. > > I think "Kill specific windows" should be considered as the special case > here. Changing or extending the "End Process" workflow would introduce more > complexity to the code. > > > Alternatively, if no process had been selected when "End Process..." is > clicked, a dialog could be opened where the process to kill would be > selected. Of course the current flow of ending a p>rocess could and should > still work. > > This would be a topic for another RR. > > Summary of final changes for this RR: > > - I would change the "End Process..." to "End Process" (remove ellipsis). > Ok? > - I am not sure if the ellipsis of "Kill specific window..." should be > removed or not. > > Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > To be honest: The more I think about this feature, the less sense it > makes to me in general. > What is XKill's usecase anyway? If an application works normally, one can > just quit it normally. If an application is frozen, KWin quite reliably > detects that when trying to close the window and allows to kill the process. > Usually "End process" is used for applications that do not have a window > (either because they don't have a GUI in the first place or because the > window has disappeared but the process is still there), in which case xkill > would not help anyway. > Yes, there may be some situations where it's useful, but they are really > corner cases. Yes, very few people know it's there, but very few people miss > the function, either. I heve never wished there was a way to hard kill a > window without using the Close button in the windeco, and I have never met > one who did. > > So we're complicating the GUI with a split button only to explain a > feature to users which the vast majority of them don't need in the first > place. > > If I have missed the "killer usecase for xkill" which makes it necessary > to make it a lot more visible
