| Summary: | "Efficiency" should be rename to "Efficiency (power)" or "Power efficiency" to cause less confusion | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Websites] bugs.kde.org | Reporter: | Fernando M. Muniz <fernandommuniz> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | KDE sysadmins <sysadmin> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | ilikefoss, nate, sheedy |
| Priority: | NOR | Keywords: | efficiency-and-performance |
| Version First Reported In: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Arch Linux | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499716#c4 | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
| Attachments: | I found it here. | ||
|
Description
Fernando M. Muniz
2025-02-18 21:51:35 UTC
I agree in general with using more accurate words to describe things so that is less confusion, but where are you seeing this? (In reply to John from comment #1) > I agree in general with using more accurate words to describe things so that > is less confusion, but where are you seeing this? Not sure I follow? I was using that keyword for bug reports regarding efficiency, until that dev's comment in the link clarified that it's not related to workflow efficiency. How are users supposed to know that from just the word "Efficiency"? Somehow you're the first person to run into this. :) The keywords aren't really advertised; where did you find this one? Created attachment 178609 [details]
I found it here.
Interesting! Ok, I guess in that case it's more public than I thought. I'll see if it's possible to rename it without spamming the universe. If that's the case, there are a couple of other things non-dev users can do that they aren't supposed to. Done; renamed it to "efficiency-and-performance" which should make the usage clear. Thanks! (In reply to Fernando M. Muniz from comment #6) > If that's the case, there are a couple of other things non-dev users can do > that they aren't supposed to. What do you mean by this? For example, I can change confirmed issues into something else, or confirm a issue myself :) But why would we want to restrict that? (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #10) > But why would we want to restrict that? If you don't mind people being able to do that, then you wouldn't want to restrict, I guess. However I can change this post from "RESOLVED - FIXED" into "REPORTED", which doesn't make sense, since the correct option would be "REOPENED" That doesn't really matter. :) Changing the target milestone matters? Apparently I can change it on some bugs, but not in others. I mean, in general you should follow a policy of "if I don't know what this does, I shouldn't touch it." Otherwise you're just making work for other people to fix and annoying them. But we also want to empower people who are contentious and know what they're doing or can learn what they're doing to be helpful without a bunch of bureaucracy and formal authorization. |