tnhh | # 391 | 2010-07-18, 04:54 | Report

Yes, my upgrade worked but I have a few problems:

• Sorting works for me but it seems to be reversed - "least recent" shows most recent at the top
• The timestamps in the list of feeds now seem to be the timestamps of last update rather than the timestamps of the most recent article
• Hiding read feeds/articles has no effect
• The whole application feels much slower

I deleted ~/.feedingit and relaunched so I don't think that the above problems are due to upgrading from an older version.

bertolt | # 392 | 2010-07-18, 04:56 | Report

so did it work properly after relaunching?

tnhh | # 393 | 2010-07-18, 05:12 | Report

Oops, forgot to say! No, all of the problems are still present even after relaunching with an empty ~/.feedingit directory.

Slocan | # 394 | 2010-07-18, 08:10 | Report

0.8.0-3, coming to extras-devel in a few minutes fixes the sorting. It was indeed reversed, and you couldn't hide the feeds with 0 articles.

ffarber | # 395 | 2010-07-18, 14:17 | Report

Slocan-

I just installed 8.0-3 and like the idea of the new widget. The old widget used to resize itself if there were not many feeds being monitored so that it did not use as much screen space. The new widget is not doing that for me, I only have two feeds being monitored by the widget. Am I missing something?

Thanks again,
Fred

Slocan | # 396 | 2010-07-18, 17:39 | Report

Correct, the new widget is fixed size. If it stays small when displaying the feed names, it would have to grow to display articles, which I'm not sure that's very friendly to other widgets around. Or it could be made to display only 2 articles at a time (when monitoring only 2 feeds). Either way, there's some compromise to be made, but I'm open to feedback/ideas.

tnhh | # 397 | 2010-07-18, 18:36 | Report

Thanks. The sorting now "works" in that "most recent" shows the most recent date at the top. But since the date is the date when the feed was last updated, this just sorts my subscriptions in reverse order - I assume that this is because they are fetched in order. In other words "most recent" and "least recent" don't do much. Is it possible to have the previous behaviour back?

quingu | # 398 | 2010-07-19, 10:35 | Report

Hey Slocan,
first, i have to thank you for all the time you put into developing this really useful program.

now comes the nitpicking. starting with the update spree, I found many quirks in the new versions that make me wish i could go back to "simpler times". For one, there are the strange sorting bugs (some new entries on top, some on bottom...), but most importantly:

I mostly used the desktop widget as a demon for always having the main feed list up-to-date, plus 3-4 entries of feeds i read often. that made it a very practical and sleek combination of a widget with very little screen space, plus always updated feeds.
now the widget is huge, like, xbox-huge. half a screen, and no way to switch it off? i don't see me browsing the feeds ever within the widget only, when a useful, well-customizable interface is just a touch away.

Is there any way of convincing you to make the widget size configurable? Or, alternatively, having the user select a widget mode, or, if all else fails, providing a second, mini-widget?

Thank you for your consideration. Keep up the good work!

ffarber | # 399 | 2010-07-19, 12:16 | Report

It really is true that people refuse to read the threads, drives me crazy as this was covered only two posts back.

I do think having the widget be a constant size, especially as large as it is makes it less attractive for use, I think there are three choices:

1) Size the widget to the number of feeds being read and only show that number of articles.
2) Allow the user to set the size of the widget with or without scrolling options.
3) Allow the user to choose between the two widget styles.

I vote for number one as I think it will be simpler for everyone. Thanks for all the work!

Fred

quingu | # 400 | 2010-07-19, 13:25 | Report

It's unhealthy to get upset so easily. I actually read slocan's statement carefully. That's why I insisted on the point that there are cases where his decision of a big, unresizable widget is a step backwards.

No need of accusing other people of things you have trouble of complying with yourself.