steve wrote:Gale Andrews wrote:If you can see a good way with the current system to record negative votes
We could write:
but if we are going to move over to a Q2A system then I don't think it's worth the time/effort to change the current system at this late stage.
- Feature short description: [votes +10 | -2]
Long description ...
Optional dev notes.
Both Peter and I think there are problems with using Q2A for feature requests, notably how we get the rich information we have now onto that system (or how we remind to also look at previous votes for the same or related things), and the unwanted/irrelevant posts if we open Q2A to the public.
I assume yes Q2A can handle downvotes. I never thought negative votes were common.
With the current system I do think we could add the date of the last vote when incrementing the vote count.
steve wrote:Gale Andrews wrote:What I am trying to get across is that Frew is presumably not now voting for this feature in a way that we can implement.
My interest here now is more about procedure than the specific case. I would prefer to split this to a different topic, but it's become entangled, and frew's request is a good example to work with.
Shouldn't we still record this as +1 from frew?
- Frew is clearly in favour of "the feature" because he's using it.
- The requested feature has not been implemented in a way that is generally available to users (not a "closed" or "resolved" issue except for one specific user).
As I said, that would be going against what we usually do, and what you yourself have cautioned against (making assumptions for people). Because you have transferred the request here, which is fine except I was unsure if you were voting for it, then at the least we can archive it even if it has no countable votes.
Another real life example I've seen at least twice. The user asks in the Windows or Mac board for silence-padded Sound Activated Recordings. You Steve point out that they can use standard record then the Noise Gate plugin. User makes no further input or says something like "OK I can try that". The original request does not get transferred to the "Adding Features" board and no vote for silence padded Sound Activated Recording is counted.
steve wrote:Gale Andrews wrote:Even if there were votes for this, there are no details of a desired implementation.
Implementation details are really a matter for the developer(s). Users / QA may or may not have clear ideas about how a feature should be implemented, but it's the developer(s) that have to implement it, and they have to work within what is possible, practical and safe.
If there were several votes for a generic request, I still think it would assist developers to know what implementation is preferred by users, in case more than one solution is safe and practical.
steve wrote:I think where this is leading is: When is a feature request considered "done" / "implemented"?
You seem to be suggesting that frew's feature request should not be recorded because (for frew) the request has been satisfied (it's done). On the other hand, we still list the feature request "Stereo widener (2 votes)", even though it has been available in the Channel Mixer plug-in for years.
I expect that happened because Channel Mixer appeared after the votes for stereo widener were recorded. If we dated the votes, we'd know.
If the votes were made after Channel Mixer appeared, it means that a shipped effect is wanted (exactly what I'm asking Frew about for his request).