Improve star rating filter

[elstoc]

A couple of issues with the new star rating filter in the top bar of the lighttable view.

The first is that, in its default (all selected) state, it draws the eye a bit too much and can be distracting - it's quite bright and high-contrast.

The second is that it is somewhat hard to read at-a-glance. If I select a range of ratings, especially in the middle of the range, I have to look hard to see which stars I've selected. For example:

The main thing I see when I just glance at this control is that two stars are highlighted. But I have to engage extra brain functions to work out which two stars are selected (is it two to three, or four to five?). In the previous interface, I usually used "greater than or equal to" by default so when I saw two stars highlighted in the top bar I instantly knew what that meant without having to think further (two == two or more stars). It's "intuitive" in the way that looking at an analogue clock is. In the new way it's the opposite, in that if I select "two or more stars", I will actually see three stars highlighted. This is hard on my tiny brain.

[AxelG-DE]

I maybe get blamed again, but I don't see the need of range selection and have the very same problem than @elstoc I also mostly worked with = >= and sometimes <= This combined with the chosen stars next to it is close to the mathematical writing.

In principle, this is the function I really want to have back, as I don't see how to better integrate it in current solution.

Switchable / configurable is here maybe also not optimal

[Nilvus]

@AxelG-DE: please help us to make progress. We understood that you don't like that. It's the fourth time you write it. I know kids scream from what they want until they have it, not adults. Sorry to be hard but it's annoying.

Said that, yes, it's normal to have issues on new huge changes. About those stars, I completely understand your statement @elstoc.

Let me explain first differences between old and new system:

On old system, to choose which stars to select, you need to:

1. click on menu
2. select stars line wanted
3. if wanted to change mathematical condition, so click on menu of it
4. then select condition

On new system now:

1. click or click-and-drag to select wanted stars

Just quicker.

Now that it is explained, the issues. I agree that it is quite bright by default. I made that and be sure I try to find the better compromise I can. I first tried less brighter but your other issue here (knowing which stars are selected) was just worst. That was really hard to find how to have not too bright way but good contrasted one to see which stars are selected and which are not.

But seems that, even if it's hard to make it worst, it's not the good way.

Reading your issue and thinking about it, I'm wondering if it would just be better and simpler to not have "highlighted" part and just have stars filled for selected ones (and increase filled contrast).

What do you think of that proposal?

I could test actually on CSS but I fear this would also need some Gtk update (as I remember highlighted CSS setting is the same for all widgets). About Gtk update, I can't do something until some days (I only have my pro computer and can't install a Git dev on it ; until my personal computer go back from repair center).

[AxelG-DE]

Sorry to be hard but it's annoying

It is also annoying how a valid request gets ignored so thoroughly

[Nilvus]

It is also annoying how a valid request gets ignored so thoroughly

Just stating that you don't like it do not make it valid. It would also have been better to post an issue with what you don't understand or things to improve (like this issue). Also better to avoid posting in issues, even if they were related to filters, they were not related to that filter. Also taking care of what is better with new system (and what is bad like what is explain correctly here) regarding old system, will also help to find a better way. I could understand that the new way need improvement but I also still think that the old way too. So more constructive to find how to have the better of both world. I'm quite sure we could find it. Your reactions for that do not help a second in that direction.

[elstoc]

I know kids scream from what they want until they have it, not adults.

Calling people childish is not necessary here.

Just stating that you don't like it do not make it valid.

Sometimes reversion is the solution and "I don't like it" is the only valid comment that can be made. Just asserting that we need to "improve" the existing solution does not make that the right approach either. I still much prefer the simplicity of the old method even if it took a few extra clicks to do things or an additional filter to select a range. Range selection is a very niche and uncommon thing to need and honestly I can't think of a use case for it (for star ratings anyway).

So more constructive to find how to have the better of both world. I'm quite sure we could find it.

Maybe. I'm sceptical at the moment whether both of my requests in this issue can be satisfactorily resolved without reversion.

I'm wondering if it would just be better and simpler to not have "highlighted" part and just have stars filled for selected ones (and increase filled contrast).

It might half-resolve the issue here. But the easy-readability is as much of a problem for me and I'm not sure how simple that is to resolve.

[AxelG-DE]

Let us stop arguing here! I actually like that the team of dt devs and contributors is a bunch of nice chaps and we should preserve that!

I have two proposals to improve current situation

1 might get accepted, might not

2 is controversial, but please allow me to speak that out and it is meant in a constructive manner!

1) I suggest to put some more space between the rejected and the 0-starred icon and yet double that space between the rest of the 1-5 stars (sorrry no ability and time atm to make a mokup, let me illustrate with X = rejected, 0=zero stars and § to be considered star and _ is the space, then it can look like: x_0__§§§§§ (we can further think to have the middle star "3" a tiny bit separated or lifted few pixels, -motivated by the haptical thing on 5 at the num-pad)

2) @Nilvus, @AlicVB: don't hit me right away, leave me 2Min headway :-) (this might be not the final proposal but a start) can we keep the today's usability (click and drag on the today's star icons) and have the "old" look just as an additional gauge (admittedly will be hard to make it clear it is an illustrator only) next to it. Don't scream right away, give it two seconds. (This gauge can be switched on and off via settings). I admit, for range it will not be too easy, but I think doable.

[Nilvus]

Ok, I was quite harsh but so many harsh messages I read since yesterday.

Of course, sometimes reversion is the solution. Here, I find the new way better than the old one. As you said, it's the joy of development, we can't please anybody. So what is the solution? Having more clicks, I don't like that. I understand that you could prefer the simplicity of the old version as I prefer the simplicity of new one. Not easy.

I often go back to all images except rejected to only rejected one or select images with four stars or five stars (or both). Sometimes less than those. it's really quicker with the new way (quite less clicks).

Maybe. I'm sceptical at the moment whether both of my requests in this issue can be satisfactorily resolved without reversion.

I hope we can anyway find a way to please all views.

For that, I propose to try (put those lines in CSS textview) if that could improve (or not) readability:

@define-color range_sel_color transparent;
@define-color range_icon_color white;

It's just for test and even those lines are not perfect as they impact all widgets selections (so selections on other will just be not visible). It's to check what that could change if there's no highlight on stars filters and only filled stars. Even that is not perfect. I would see more filled stars but will be not only CSS here to improve that.

[Nilvus]

1. I suggest to put some more space between the rejected and the 0-starred icon and yet double that space between the rest of the 1-5 stars (sorrry no ability and time atm to make a mokup, let me illustrate with X = rejected, 0=zero stars and § to be considered star and _ is the space, then it can look like: x_0__§§§§§ (we can further think to have the middle star "3" a tiny bit separated or lifted few pixels, -motivated by the haptical thing on 5 at the num-pad)

2. @Nilvus, @AlicVB:  don't hit me right away, leave me 2Min headway :-) (this might be not the final proposal but a start)
   can we keep the today's usability (click and drag on the today's star icons) and have the "old" look just as an additional gauge (admittedly will be hard to make it clear it is an illustrator only) next to it. Don't scream right away, give it two seconds. (This gauge can be switched on and off via settings). I admit, for range it will not be too easy, but I think doable.

I really love your answer here. Thanks and sorry for being harsh. Harsh messages yesterday just make me really sad.

About your proposal, I like them, especially first one. For second one, I'm just not sure to understood it correctly.

[elstoc]

Let's just all try to remember that things get heated because we all want darktable to be the best it can be, and sometimes that is hard.

[elstoc]

I suggest to put some more space between the rejected and the 0-starred icon and yet double that space between the rest of the 1-5 stars

Putting the two reject/0 icons on their own would definitely help readability.

[parafin]

Current way is definitely not readable or intuitive, and the reason is that same star icons in the row are used very differently elsewhere (old filters and image overlay). There number of lit stars is the rating, and their position in the row doesn’t really matter. In the modern filters position matters, and it means that user has to count it, which is much harder than just counting the number of objects. My suggestion would be to change this filter appearance to differ from image overlay. E.g. put 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. inside the star, or render five star rating as five stars in the square, not one star in fifth position.

[AlicVB]

@elstoc : please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, one of your main concern (apart from colors) is that you can't know in one sight which are the selected values, right ? I mean, when you have 3-4 selection, it's hard to know directly (without involving some sort of icon counting) those "numbers", right again ?

If that's it, I perfectly understand your concern, and that's clearly a regression here... I will try to come with some proposals asap

edit : @parafin seems we have had the same idea ;)

[elstoc]

@AlicVB that is indeed my primary concern, as also illustrated by @parafin's comment.

I will say, though, that I'm also sceptical about the range selection widget as a concept. When it comes to UI, I much prefer sticking to generally-accepted design patterns as these will be more familiar to new users, who already have enough trouble working out how to do image processing. Let's see if we can make it work better first though.

[AxelG-DE]

May I add one more comment in regards to refinement...

What @parafin said with his last sentence is perfectly the trouble, at the same time I understand, light up more stars is needed for the range (e.g. 2-4 stars)...

[A] Here comes my proposal: 1) if one selects =3star than light 1st to 3rd star (like you do today for 1-3stars) 2) of one selects 1-3 stars, also fill the three stars but no background highlight and underline, (maybe even with arrows at that line) the 1-3stars

[B] Alternatively, turn my proposal around: 1) select =3star gets star 1-3 lit no background highlight 2) select 1-3 stars, like today's situation Admittedly that might look confusing, but maybe we are getting there....

[C] 3rd alternative is a kind mix between the two [B1 + A2]: 1) select =3star gets star 1-3 lit no background highlight 2) if one selects 1-3 stars, also fill the three stars but no background highlight and underline, (maybe even with arrows at that line) the 1-3stars

Plus my above proposed separation... :-)

I know there will be "buts"....

[elstoc]

@AxelG-DE this sounds more confusing to me. I think someone probably needs to mock up some proposals visually so we can understand the options better.

[AlicVB]

here is a first draft... (done very quickly in gimp, so take it just as mockup to be refined) :

1. first line is actual situation for reference
2. second line, we use numbers. that should be easier to read on first sight. You can see that I have kept the 2 first icons as they are self explanatory imho, and more important, that allow to know what the filter is for, esp with the first star.
3. third line, we use the "dice" representation of the numbers. Should be quite easy to read too, based on the fact that it's the first abstract representation used with kids, at least in France...

imho, n°2 is the best (with some tweaking on the color, we should emphasis more the selected number compared to the others) What worried me a little (not sure) is that users may not understand directly that it's the "rating filter", even with the first crossed star...

I find n°3 a little bit messy... representations are hard to distinguish... I've tried with "just" point instead of the reduced stars... but then if we accept to loose the "star" icons, it's better to go with number imho....

[elstoc]

I agree, the second is best of the three options, though without the "zero star" icon it would be hard to know what is being represented. Unfortunately consistency would suggest that the zero star should have a number 0 against it. A label at the start (or even a star icon) would perhaps help (so it goes *x012345 if you take my meaning, where the * is essentially a label) though this might mess up the look of it.

[Jiyone]

I agree the second is best to read.

[AxelG-DE]

atm I also think No2 is good to read. still think my Idea(s) might bring us a step more foward.

I try to do a mock-up maybe tomorrow or so, I am just very poor in gimp :-(

[Nilvus]

I agree, the second is best of the three options, though without the "zero star" icon it would be hard to know what is being represented. Unfortunately consistency would suggest that the zero star should have a number 0 against it. A label at the start (or even a star icon) would perhaps help (so it goes *x012345 if you take my meaning, where the * is essentially a label) though this might mess up the look of it.

It's the best but that point is important. I fear that do not have stars will be worst to understand what is it. As @parafin suggest, maybe we could text numbers inside stars (making icons a little bigger, it's possible regarding padding we can see outside them).

I think it should be good to test those numbers inside actual stars to be sure rendering is correct.

And @AxelG-DE idea to add a little space between reject and no star icons and another one between no star icons and five one is also good I think.

[elstoc]

I fear that do not have stars will be worst to understand what is it.

Sure. That's why I suggested a star icon as a label

[AlicVB]

hmm... an icon as a label would be great... but I fear that a star like we have actually would put confusion... @Nilvus : I'm sure you are able to design a "filter by rating" icon :) don't you ? (isn't that an elegant way to delegate something we are not able to do ? :D)

For the icon + number, why not, I have planed to do that as a third mockup, but I just have failed to get something readable... either the star what to prominent, either the number... but now that I think to that again, I've not tested the star as a background...

@AxelG-DE : Yes, if you can achieve a mockup that would be great, as I'm not sure to understand everything in your idea? For instance, as @elstoc that seems quite confusing, but I have the feeling that what you have in mind doesn't correspond to your original idea...

[Nilvus]

hmm... an icon as a label would be great... but I fear that a star like we have actually would put confusion... @Nilvus : I'm sure you are able to design a "filter by rating" icon :) don't you ? (isn't that an elegant way to delegate something we are not able to do ? :D)

hmm, I fear that this will increase icons/size of the widget but if we have many people for that, i could try. When my computer will be back!

For the icon + number, why not, I have planed to do that as a third mockup, but I just have failed to get something readable... either the star what to prominent, either the number... but now that I think to that again, I've not tested the star as a background...

I would give a try before adding an icon as a label!

[AlicVB]

here is a very rough try for the version (see last line)... I fear that the star are hard to distinguish... but that would also be the case for the other proposals !

for me, the n°2 is still the most readable... tbh I don't find the first "stroked" star so much problematic :

• we clearly see that it's a star, no doubt
• if one has a doubt about it's value, the strike line + the contextual "tooltip" + the fact that it's before 1-2-3-4-5 should help
• for experienced users, the "one sight" feature is here as the "reject" and the "no-star" are different enough imho

[AxelG-DE]

With regards to my proposals [A], [B] and [C] above, here I try to illustrate, what I meant. I am fine to further get it fine-tuned...

I realized, even once I did a little with gimp, but this evening I was not able to do the least things, hence I used KolourPaint. Sorry for ugly look :blush:

This is my mock-up proposal for =3*

And this is a mock-up proposal as an example for range 2-4star (I would give that "arrow" into the group, where user can give it the different color, like Jiyone did for his sliders in light orange)

I admit range 1-3star would just be differentiated by the arrow, but maybe we could get back the background lit, which I elimineted here or work with a gradient shade, if ever possible with GTK or two arrows, one on top as well

[aurelienpierre]

The previous way of showing stars was both legible and functional.

This design forces us to chose one or the other.

This is a regression.

Now we are discussing how to make it less bad, not better.

This is a fucking nightmare.

Please revert.

[elstoc]

I know it's not constructive and I'm not going to get sweary and angry, but I do agree that we've still not got something that's better than what's in 3.8.1.

[Nilvus]

The previous way of showing stars was both legible and functional.

This design forces us to chose one or the other.

Yes, it's an issue but this design also allow to do selections with 1 click instead of 2 or 4 on previous one, depending on changes.

This is a regression.

So revert will also be a regression.

Now we are discussing how to make it less bad, not better.

That doesn't mean, it can't be better.

This is a fucking nightmare.

As always, exaggerated... We talk about an UI, not the end of the world...

[elstoc]

Yes, it's an issue but this design also allow to do selections with 1 click instead of 2 or 4 on previous one

The question is: have we gained more than we've lost? At the moment I don't think we have.

[AlicVB]

I'll try to let the swearwords apart (even if it's hard) and explain again why I (and others) do think this is better :

• previously each change need at least 2 click. often 3 (to switch between >= and =)
• what is proposed needs only 1 click or 1 click+drag.
• note that previous settings can also be reach by right-click + select in the popup (click) for those who find click+drag not so easy.
• previously to see quickly what happen you have to look in 2 places : the operator (>= or =) and the stars. personally I've many time overlooked the operator, or confused >= and = (quite similar for my eyes)
• what is proposed is better regarding the operator (maybe we should improve the color, though) but still need some work on the other part... and that's exactly what we are trying here.
• previous implementation doesn't allow real range which correspond to usecases : for example show all "not so great" images (1-3)...
• previously, the implementation use a very strange widgets stacking involving some overlay and such, which needed some exceptions in the code and break lot of theming (colors, alignments, margins, tooltips)
• what is proposed take way less horizontal space, which is now quite a critical thing for the top bar
• what is proposed is more consistent with what we have for the other filters (well that's an easy one, the author is the same :))

Note that most points have already been explained in the mentioned PR.

The question is: have we gained more than we've lost? At the moment I don't think we have.

I think so... and that's here where we disagree... That's not a problem, we just need to find altogether how either to improve my widget, either how to improve the previous one... (and you can see that the issues in both cases are not so different)

[Nilvus]

sorry, just a mistake

[aurelienpierre]

previously each change need at least 2 click. often 3 (to switch between >= and =)

So make it a combobox of operators ?

what is proposed needs only 1 click or 1 click+drag.

Except if you want to reset filters, now it's right-click -> contextual menu -> click.

previous implementation doesn't allow real range which correspond to usecases : for example show all "not so great" images (1-3)...

Which was a feature requested by whom ? The culling process is usually a gradual up-rating process where you give one more star at each step until you find yourself happy with a selection of pictures to edit. This only needs > or >=.

what is proposed take way less horizontal space, which is now quite a critical thing for the top bar

It takes less horizontal space because it also takes much more vertical space, so overall real-estate consumption increased

[AxelG-DE]

I'll try to let the swearwords apart (even if it's hard) and explain again why I (and others) do think this is better :

I think with beginning of this issue, we started to cool down a bit already. The hot temper involved is a sign, we all love dt. I also had my deep frustrations the other days on another end...

I am very sensitive for useless additional clicks, fun fact, here I was not so bothered...

So I am not arguing, just try to mention my opinion

* previously each change need at least 2 click. often 3 (to switch between >= and =)

Was o.k.-ish for me as I usually stood on "=" and just changed the stars

* what is proposed needs only 1 click or 1 click+drag.

Correct and maybe appreciated one day. Just atm:

• it is not so obvious, where the triangle to open a combobox is known for long time
• it can(!) give additional bother, when it does not react as expected (happens for me sometimes and i have to re-do, just hard to reproduce)

* previously to see quickly what happen you have to look in 2 places : the operator (>= or =) and the stars. personally I've many time overlooked the operator, or confused >= and = (quite similar for my eyes)

* what is proposed is better regarding the operator (maybe we should improve the color, though) but still need some work on the other part... and that's exactly what we are trying here.

• matter of taste :-)
• but I think, with my above mock-up (which indeed will have to be refined). we couuld have the operator next to it as illustration and I would be already very fine

* previous implementation doesn't allow real range which correspond to usecases : for example show all "not so great" images (1-3)...

• here I really ask, whether this is a use case for minority or majority.
• I did this just by <=3, where rejectets where not shown

* what is proposed take way less horizontal space, which is now quite a critical thing for the top bar

• in the first place all widgets where "on" and then it was actually much more space, which triggered me. Just today I learned, they can be off
• I do llike the icon for sorting way better than the old one:
• particularly when sorting is decending, it looked confusing in the past

Note that most points have already been explained in the mentioned PR.

Me as the master testing pilot :laughing: was offline for one year for hose renovation (and still busy with the final touches), so you would have had a harder time by then. Now it is now :-) :-)

The question is: have we gained more than we've lost? At the moment I don't think we have.

I think so... and that's here where we disagree... That's not a problem, we just need to find altogether how either to improve my widget, either how to improve the previous one... (and you can see that the issues in both cases are not so different)

I like this attitude a lot! I see, both sides need to improve the communication and I see a clear trend to that and I will also work hard on it

• (A) should use clean language and be respectful
• (B) hopefully uses more rational arguments then "is better now" or "was lots of work". That is emotionally very understandable but less rationally, IMHO

[AxelG-DE]

Ammendment:

I noticed one difficulty with the dragging function. Often I click already, before the mouse came to a full stop, than this is already considered as a "drag" and causes me inadvertant results.

Additional question: can we have this combo-thing from "sort-by" next to stars also instead of right click? And offer there the = selection too, not only the ranges (clicking today on 3 makes it 3-> max)

[aurelienpierre]

And I just discovered that one click over a star selects pictures with exactly that rating. Which is not what I need. Previous design allowed me to select pictures > some rating in just one operation.

This is another objective regression. It's not about liking it or not, it's about having to spend more time and more steps to achieve the same task.

The proposed solution fails.

[AlicVB]

Except if you want to reset filters, now it's right-click -> contextual menu -> click.

or double-click like most widgets in dt ;) (yes, that can be seen as an hidden feature, but well... that's every where in dt atm)

This is another objective regression. It's not about liking it or not, it's about having to spend more time and more steps to achieve the same task.

I'm not sure to understand completely. I suppose that the right-click is harder with your graphic tablet than the left-click ? (sadly I don't own that equipment...) In that case, maybe the solution proposed by @AxelG-DE would solve that (I'm not a big fan, but...)

can we have this combo-thing from "sort-by" next to stars also instead of right click?

And offer there the = selection too, not only the ranges (clicking today on 3 makes it 3-> max)

That's very easy, and we should also enhance the text for the >= entries

[TurboGit]

For 4.0 we need to make progress, so here is what I propose (and correct me if I missed a point in this large and convoluted discussion):

1. Change GUI to use numbers instead of stars (2nd proposal from @AlicVB)
2. Add an arrow on the right of the star to make it clear that there is a sub-menu

@AxelG-DE :

And offer there the = selection too, not only the ranges (clicking today on 3 makes it 3-> max)

For this you just click on start 3 and you have only 3. That's the "=" you are speaking about, right?

Then we will have another full release circle to enhance those new widgets and the collection filter.

[AxelG-DE]

I am not happy with the numbers tho, AFAIK @AlicVB also not, and come back again to my mock-up

Also I am still in particular not happy, if I click 3 or 4 in the "=" mode, just one star is actually lit (in its 3rd or 4th position in that given example)

For this you just click on start 3 and you have only 3. That's the "=" you are speaking about, right?

@TurboGit you are right and you may consider it a dupe, however I find it confusing, that in the sub-menu kind of only have >= choice, where "=" is the vast majority in my "wokflow"

[TurboGit]

that in the sub-menu kind of only have >= choice, where "=" is the vast majority in my "wokflow"

That's where the problem is. I have always use >= and this is the default operator in 3.8.1 IIRRC.

[AlicVB]

I am not happy with the numbers tho, AFAIK @AlicVB also not, and come back again to my mock-up

hmm... that's certainly my bad english, but in fact the mockup n°2 is my preferred one :)

About your mockup, I like the separation between the 2 first icons and the numbers (maybe a with little less space) but I find the arrow and the coloring of your proposal really confusing and hard to read, especially once you downscale the mockup to the "real" size they will have in the ui (well, at least in my non-dpi screen) More important, I'm not convinced at all that this can solve the issue mentioned by @elstoc and @parafin ...

For the list of "predefined" range shown in the popup, we can add the "=" ones, as I've said. it's really easy... but what we should ask us imho is : is that needed at all ? After all, the "=" is "just" a matter of 1 simple click, contrary to the >= which needs dragging and may not be obvious for users (in that case that may be viewed as a way to learn, like presets in some cases)... so the question is : would the visual confusion of the >= and = in the predefined values and the cluttering of the popup be better or worse than the "hiding" of the = value there ? Just a question, really ;)

[AxelG-DE]

@AlicVB ohhhh please ignore that red ring on my screenshots, that came from the sofware I used....

[AlicVB]

no pb... I've guess that ;). My bad, when I speak about the colors, I mean how you change the colors of the stars and their background to reflect the settings...

[AxelG-DE]

oh the filling of the stars is also because I was not able to do it better, particularly in parallel to other things....

To me is important, I see the amount of stars lit, which are referring to selected, as I said above. Means: =2 --> 2stars should be lit =3 --> 3stars should be lit and so forth

that contradicts to your "range", which could be illustrated then with the grey-ish background, which I eliminated or with my arrow (which I assume is controversial)

I would be mega happy if this could be realized

[elstoc]

I'm sorry but I still don't think we're anywhere with this. Is the size of this change the main reason not to revert? I'm not necessarily saying abandon altogether but it (the new widgets in general) feels like it's some way from release-ready and we're approaching feature freeze.

Sometimes moving backwards is the best way to move forwards (yes I've started a fortune cookie business).

[paperdigits]

If I may chime in a bit late, I'd agree that this is really hard to use. I've tried for about 20 minutes and I still can't seem to make a selection properly. I don't find this easy to use at all and my desire would be to revert the GUI pieces to what they are in the current 3.8.1

[MStraeten]

perhaps let's take a look at the functional and non-functional requirements that the implemented solution should fulfill. just picking out some aspects won't be helpful. if there's an consensus on these requirements then there's a base to discuss the implemented solution. Or just accept the implemented solution as a first step to a nit yet defined target if it matches the requirements.

Unfortunately a cople of weeks before code freeze isn't the best time for requirements elicitation ;)

[aurelienpierre]

Let us recall that @phweyland proposed an elegantly simple solution to achieve the same purpose back in february 2022.

The feature being discussed here is a technical debt in search of a problem to solve. It is riddeled with bugs in addition of degrading usability.

What is really stupid here is that there is already a draft PR to rewrite it and merge it with usual collections because that's merely a UI redundancy. So all that bug fixing and doc writing for something that is already planned for deprecation is beyond idiotic.

Highjacking the dev due-process under the pretext that feature-freeze is there is another fallacy. We have every right to decide to postpone a release, we made that rule, we can revise it anytime, there is no external pressure to release anything on 21th june. On the other hand, once it's released, there is no turning back.

And I don't care that it took 3 months to produce this nightmare. @phweyland 's work was overwritten without a second thought, so that argument is voided by the very persons using it now.

This feature needs a revert now. It's a regression and an insult to intelligence.

Ultimately, I don't really care anymore. I have my fork now and 5500 subscribers who will be made aware of what I think dt is headed to. Destroy dt all you want, I have backups.

[elstoc]

This doesn't resolve the issues I've raised here but puts off their resolution until a later date and gives the option to temporarily reinstate the old widget.

[TurboGit]

@elstoc : As this is a quite convoluted issue, do you think you could create a new one with the fix still to be done and let this closed for good?

[elstoc]

I'm not sure that's necessary. The issues are still as I explained in the first post and the comments are a discussion of the options (I guess you just want to hide the frustrated/angry comments?). I still don't know what the resolution should be to these issues and someone would have to review this discussion again to get a full understanding (or we'd have to repeat half the comments in the new issue).

I could copy-paste my first post to a new issue if you really want but I'm not sure what that achieves.