when some truly heinous new interface to KDE or some rather poorly thought out new feature is committed to CVS, rarely does anyone bat an eye or do more than grumble a bit in passing on irc. fortunately, most of our developers don't commit truly heinous interfaces or poorly though out features, otherwise we'd be up crap creek without a paddle. unfortunately, sometimes such things do make it in to our CVS and often they just sit there as rather public warts with nary the protest to be heard or patches seen.
but.. try and change something that's visible and just sit back and wait for the unending stream of bitter complaints and hyperdetailed nitpicking. the bitter complaints i could do with out, especially some of the more insane ones. i could also do without the waste of time, energy and positivity that it all entails.
but the hyperdetailed nitpicking is often good. it tends to come from people looking to find any reason or excuse to be able to declare the change wrong, bad and harmful to babies so that you just have to change it back. and this examination often does reveal weaknesses, flaws and/or bugs in the implementation that then get fixed.
what leaves me scratching my head, however, is the amount of energy people will put into stomping on anything that is a change (for the better or not) but who don't spend even 10% of that amount of energy ensuring things far more egregious don't make it into CVS in the first place.
why? a lack of motivation to do so, i'd imagine. selfishness and the very human reaction of displeasure associated with change drives people to action, but these driving forces simply don't exist when it comes to people dropping new things into CVS.
how can we redirect some of that energy to following new feature and interface commits?