Hi,

I am currently using mostly KDE3 apps and rarely KDE4 because of the missing features or bugs introduced in KDE4 series. I was wondering if it would be useful to make a simple webpage (I can start it) with links to bugzilla + summary of each bug.

The target audience of such webpage would be all users of KDE3 apps who wonder if switching to KDE4 counterpart could cause problem. It won't be blog, opinions, or anything like that -- purely technical list of migration-stoppers reports. Nothing else. So anyone could evaluate for him/herself if the switch is justified atm.

For example (w/o links here):
* Konq/KDE4 deselects selection
* Konq/KDE4 does not work with proxy
* Okular/KDE4 incorrectly renders .chm files (vs. kchmviewer/KDE3)
* Okular/KDE4 poorly renders text in pdf (vs. kpdf/KDE3)
* KMail/KDE4 does not allow to put spam/ham/custom templates on toolbar
* KMail/KDE4 deletes incorrect filters on closing filter dialog
* Kate/KDE4 does not sort lines

Are there any KDE3 users alive? Would such webpage be useful for you?

Maybe it could be useful for devs to -- to list the problems which slows down migration process.

Thoughts/opinions/ideas are welcome, thank you.

Cheers,

No offense, but perhaps I think the bugzilla entry is good enough as a list of showstoppers for potential switchers. Such a website would quickly become out of date.

Maybe (personally I have only one kde3 app even installed...), but some issues would always be opinions. I.e.

macias wrote:Okular/KDE4 poorly renders text in pdf (vs. kpdf/KDE3)

Never noticed that myself.

@Moult, the idea was/is to simply list the showstoppers in one place. BKO does not have such category as migration showstopper, what worse some regression bugs are marked as wishes. Some are not part of BKO, because KDE apps depends on external libraries.

@Kryten, regression issues are not opinions, they are technical facts. The feature A was present in X.Y and now it is not -- it is hardly subjective matter.

Kpdf:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20143

macias wrote:@Kryten, regression issues are not opinions, they are technical facts. The feature A was present in X.Y and now it is not -- it is hardly subjective matter.

I beg to differ. Technical facts is only one factor here, and those are as you say indisputable. If version 1.1 of app X always crash when you do Y but version 1.0 does not, then it's clearly a regression.

However, "poorly renders text in pdfs" is by itself subjective. And how could it be otherwise? Your eyesight and eye for detail is the only guidance you have weather Okular/poppler renders it poorly compared to Kpdf. It's not something that can be measured and will be the same for everyone.

I looked at the examples on that page you linked to, and to be honest: I can't see the difference even when it's pointed out what I should look for. So, to me and possibly others it is not necessarily a regression. I wonder though...even for those that do see the difference: is it the same regardless of whether viewed on screen or printed out?

Oh, and regarding that: spam/ham in Kmail: that works. At least I have buttons for them in my toolbar (4.3 RC1).

macias wrote:* Okular/KDE4 incorrectly renders .chm files (vs. kchmviewer/KDE3)

Hardly a blocker for KDE 4 usage, since there's kchmviewer for KDE 4.

macias wrote:* Okular/KDE4 poorly renders text in pdf (vs. kpdf/KDE3)

As Kryten2X4B said as well, this is a) quite subjective in what is "poor" and what is "nice" b) highly depending on per-document cases.
And even if there are bug reports, they just show the particular cases, not the general situation.

macias wrote:Maybe it could be useful for devs to -- to list the problems which slows down migration process.

And then every user would add their "pet bugs" there, hoping that this way developers would fix those "faster" just because they are marked somehow "important" for migration. Adding more places to look for developers is not going to work, it just makes us spend more time in looking in more places and "merging" information from them.