On 10/12/17 00:27, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
Adding extraneous flags as a political decision to deviate from upstream defaults is itself a side effect. We will not do this without significantly more justification than "I dislike how it looks and don't want to write my own config file". In the truest spirit of Arch Linux, we would like "defaults suck and no one can read this garbage" to be fixed upstream, while Arch users will likely read the manpage and set their own configuration (though I personally encourage switching to htop, which not only fixed my gripe with top, but turned out to be the process viewer I hadn't realized I was missing).
I thought that e.g. accessibility and user experience was greater justification than "I dislike it". Granted it's not the raison d'etre of Arch but with such a small commitment/maintenance burden I honestly couldn't see the harm in it. If I could I wouldn't have bothered with any of this.
You said "top sucks, let me list the reasons why I don't like it". This is no better!
Turning a gripe into a bulleted list of gripes does not constitute migrating from a gripe to a "proposal"; being a "proposal" says nothing whatsoever about its status as a technical merit vs. political change.
Providing an implementation with rationale (whether or not you agree with it) is definitely not "griping". If someone submitted a PR which changed code you wouldn't call it political. This is no different.
So we'd have to look at the *content* of your proposal... and there we hit into the issue that you just responded to by claiming that "OMG it's a proposal not a gripe" without actually saying anything.
I don't know what else you want. I remember (in another life) someone saying "unless someone has a substantive reason", which really meant "unless there's something involving money". Anything else wasn't "valid". In this case... I don't honestly know. What could/should have been a quick discussion has moved into what's approaching a philosophical discussion, which certainly wasn't my intention.
Namely, you agree it is subjective but want to argue about whether everyone agrees with your subjective opinion. But... Arch does not and never has and never will care about peoples' subjective opinions merely for the sake of subjective opinions. We expect people to read manpages and configure software for themselves. We don't add changes to upstream except for clearly defined reasons, and configuring things on behalf of the user is not one of these reasons.
So excuse me, but in what possible world did you either file that bugreport or start this discussion thread with the belief that you had any chance whatsoever of getting this changed? This whole issue approaches the level of a deliberate spam comment...
"If you have a question regarding Arch development, please ensure that your topic poses a specific question and be open-minded to responses. If possible, provide a solution or partial solution. Submitting code and patches for discussion is always more pragmatic than asking others to do it for you."
and given that you are *that* jonathon, I am not going to buy ignorance as an excuse.
Thank you.
Awesome! So happy that a mutually satisfactory outcome was obtained!
I'm glad the discussion was productive, sarcasm aside. J