I recently described a trivial, but 2-month-old problem - which grew to such an extent that it was blocked by @andrew - link..
Wow. – blocked / from now on GitHub*.
I’m not going to - I, amongst many others, devoted enough time to testing and describing the problem to do it again on GitHub and get an answer / it works for me / maybe someday / … /
You don’t like the posts of users who have installed Concrete CMS on their servers?
I understand. Cash register. I also prefer it when he agrees and doesn’t run away.
So now from a different perspective
Which is where it should work.
Same symptoms as in … link on a platform you control (SAAS).
Should I also write to you on GitHub as a regular user?
– This must be some kind of joke.
Do what you said you would do – deliver a product that works.
Don’t blame the users - it’s the design/implementation that’s bad.
Contrary to what you say (the system is free), you are not doing it for free - you have a Market from which you charge a 30% commission and you have set a minimum price above the profitable value of simple plugins (you are killing your market) - ask the developers if you don’t believe me.
- I don’t know if I’ll ever go back there after my experiences - / it works for me / maybe someday / … /
Whelp… you can please some of the people, some of the time…
The other thread on the X has a pretty clear explanation from Andy on what happened. No, no one thinks it is ideal. No one is “blaming the users.” The reality is there’s a lot of moving parts and conflicting requirements when managing an open source project that is actively being used. Much to my own disappointment the ability to just automatically replace the bird with the x across thousands of sites we don’t actually manage turned out to be technically impossible with the type of grace we typically deliver.
In my own thinking, it’s an example of where our requirement definitions and internal processes could benefit from refinement. When it became clear that the intersection of font-awesome and the X was going to cause challenges, we should have considered revisiting requirements and changing things to making it not an automatic swap, but instead a new icon you could add by hand. That would have given us a better way to roll out this so it didn’t impact existing sites from within a point release. We’re certainly thinking about that, because as we’ve all stated multiple times, we acknowledge it wasn’t ideal.
If you have better ways to solve problems, you are very much encouraged to share them. Github is the best place to do that. Certainly if someone else had submitted a merge request with a more elegant way to implement the X change, Andy would have reviewed, responded and hopefully been able to merge that code. He has done this literally thousands of times before when hundreds of other people from the community have contributed solutions to problems they’ve thought through.
If your contribution is going to amount to demands without solutions, yeah - you’re probably not going to get very far on github either. To be direct, I know english is a second language for you - but these threads read super negative in american english. I don’t really need to be told by you how I pay my bills, nor do I think it has anything to do with the ridiculous complexity involved in solving what should be a simple icon switch. I could do without the attitude that I somehow owe you something, or that our occasional imperfections are a cash grab.
You’re more than welcome to help solve problems.