Powerdevil notifications

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Sep 29 14:34:43 BST 2009

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:05:41 +0200 Sebastian Kügler <sebas at kde.org> wrote:
>On Thursday 10 September 2009 02:17:44 Yuriy Kozlov wrote:
>> 2009/9/9 Aurélien Gâteau <aurelien.gateau at canonical.com>:
>> > As you probably know (at least if you are using KDE4 on a laptop),
>> > Powerdevil shows a notification when you are running out of power and it
>> > is about to suspend/hibernate/shutdown the computer.
>> >
>> > This notification provides an action to cancel the suspend process. This
>> > is the only notification I found within KDE which could cause a real
>> > problem when using Ayatana notifications.  Gnome-power-manager used a
>> > similar notification, and the notification was turned into a dialog, the
>> > argument being that the program is about to do something very drastic,
>> > so it is OK to show a dialog in this situation.
>> >
>> > I would like to make a similar change in Powerdevil.  I think this
>> > change would be a good idea even when using regular KDE notifications
>> > (there has been some discussion on the subject on kde-core-devel@, with
>> > mixed opinions, but I think it could be upstreamed).  I attached a
>> > mock-up of the dialog I would like to implement.  What do you think
>> > about this?
>> >
>> > Aurelien
>> I am for this becoming a dialog.  When it has come up, I never seemed
>> to get down there in time.  Though I thought I did -- it seemed more
>> like the button just didn't do anything!  Regardless, it's an urgent
>> message and something will most certainly be interrupting my work in
>> 10 seconds if I don't act on it, so it should be a dialog.
>I object (also as a Kubuntu developer):
>Merging this patch will change the behaviour of an upstream component significantly, 
>violating basic design rules of the Plasma team. The Plasma team has taken a very 
>conscious choice here, and explained that at length in the thread on kde-core-devel 
>linked below.
>Changing powerdevil is not part of the Ayatana testing either. The patches are 
>unconditional (so also affect the non-Ayatana setup) and Aurelien said they were 
>independant of Ayatana -- although that sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. 
>As such, the rule to follow would be "get it merged upstream, then ship it". 
>Diverting from upstream is the wrong thing to do here. The patch has been rejected, 
>and thus should be dropped from Kubuntu as well.
>Shipping this patch will increase resource consumption of the Kubuntu community long-
>term and hurt the relationship with KDE's team. One very recent example for this can 
>be found here:
>Personally, this kind of things (changing powerdevil interaction scheme, but also 
>shipping the networkmanager plasmoid from playground without even asking) discourage 
>me from working with the Kubuntu team. I understand that you want to create a good 
>desktop, but this is the wrong way to go about it.
>> Can you link to the kde-core-devel discussion?

I completely agree with this.  The real problems are with the amount of time (10 seconds is too short) and the action target on the notification is too small.  Neither of these cases requires a dialogue to fix.

Additionally, I have so far once gotten the dialogue on resume from a suspend that was due to lid close, not low battery.  I have not been able to replicate it, but that is an indication to me that the patch is somehow broken (LP 438445).

This is a permanent divergence from upstream that provides little to no user benefit.  It should be reverted.  This is also not consistent with my understanding of what was agreed at the Kubuntu meeting where this was discussed.  If we were going to apply the patch anyway, there was no point in the action to talk to upstream first.

Scott K

More information about the kubuntu-devel mailing list