@schlawg said in #18:
> Here's the deal. RE disabling in preferences, or analysis hamburger menu. There is extreme, extreme reluctance to create a new setting for every added change.
There might be conflict between user diversity and maintenance pressure for minimizing feature interactions.... update here, look for ripples there.... Could not this be quantified or openly subjectively debatingly measured. man-hours etc...
>
> So it's all about convincing lichess it's needed. LOG AN ISSUE. github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues
i don't have an issue, i have other suggestions of solutions better than the setting option. just did not want to dismiss it.
alternatively. just making a context of analysis and feature use case dependency table, might tell where to turn it off systematically and where to keep it, to maximize improvement for some and minimize annoyance for others... That is why i asked those with understandable annoyances issues, to specify context. they are the best data source for such table.
Derailing into meta a bit or too much:
Web standardization should have limits.. the web site creators (not aiming at lichess) should just give mores jobs to developpers ;).
Speculating:
Lichess to my naive understanding is not a big elephant where things grow in a centrifugal fashions. The need for collaborative work may create a pressure in that direction, but my limited dilettante perusing of part of that code base a while ago, did show an early modular skeleton that seemed to be the guide for the codebase. That is why maybe i would see lots of imports in any individual source code file. not that I got it all figured out. but i think i did remember a diagram of that skeleton somewhere.
That would argue for robustness to change and their ripples.. but see below for final couter-point (self-debate, agreeing with the possibility that settings should not be a goto solution).
>
> I will not do that for you. I'm not opposed to a new setting here and that has already been communicated and is known, so it would be redundant and obstinate for me to create that issue. A well reasoned and concise illustration of how it negatively affects some analysis workflows such as @winstratus provided above, but in github, could be the difference. Or at least a start.
I was just listing options, and not even in my preferred order if there was a strict ordering anyway. the settings is my least favorite actually. and not elegant I concede. That might be the reason why it is shied upon too.. a big cluster of ties to all the modules, a cluster something source of future entanglements.....
I did not ask you to do that. I am only in the lichess forum. Where we can look from afar. and talk to you. I did not mean in other thread that user should stick to forum, and devs to github. that would be the opposite of my intent. I was saying, if that is the matter, that we may need to work out ideas here before going there, and that on the contrary of splitting the crowds, having some strains of devs also users mingling here might help making readable issues after a while there.... sorry if your "do that for me" was not in relation to that.
I could start a messy issue over there.. but i don't like to just focus one one issue and not consider the context... i would get lost. sometimes things can't be made simpler than their core complexity.. or sometimes one needs to look at a problem in a larger context to see the set of solution elements that together would solve a somewhat complex issue, but not individually.
In my previous post i may have started dissecting the issues this is orbiting around. I would need perhaps to iterate it better.
I would not want to make a mess over there, as not being a forum mindset to my limited experience. the things have to be almost already packaged. I don't have the ability to do that alone.
> Here's the deal. RE disabling in preferences, or analysis hamburger menu. There is extreme, extreme reluctance to create a new setting for every added change.
There might be conflict between user diversity and maintenance pressure for minimizing feature interactions.... update here, look for ripples there.... Could not this be quantified or openly subjectively debatingly measured. man-hours etc...
>
> So it's all about convincing lichess it's needed. LOG AN ISSUE. github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues
i don't have an issue, i have other suggestions of solutions better than the setting option. just did not want to dismiss it.
alternatively. just making a context of analysis and feature use case dependency table, might tell where to turn it off systematically and where to keep it, to maximize improvement for some and minimize annoyance for others... That is why i asked those with understandable annoyances issues, to specify context. they are the best data source for such table.
Derailing into meta a bit or too much:
Web standardization should have limits.. the web site creators (not aiming at lichess) should just give mores jobs to developpers ;).
Speculating:
Lichess to my naive understanding is not a big elephant where things grow in a centrifugal fashions. The need for collaborative work may create a pressure in that direction, but my limited dilettante perusing of part of that code base a while ago, did show an early modular skeleton that seemed to be the guide for the codebase. That is why maybe i would see lots of imports in any individual source code file. not that I got it all figured out. but i think i did remember a diagram of that skeleton somewhere.
That would argue for robustness to change and their ripples.. but see below for final couter-point (self-debate, agreeing with the possibility that settings should not be a goto solution).
>
> I will not do that for you. I'm not opposed to a new setting here and that has already been communicated and is known, so it would be redundant and obstinate for me to create that issue. A well reasoned and concise illustration of how it negatively affects some analysis workflows such as @winstratus provided above, but in github, could be the difference. Or at least a start.
I was just listing options, and not even in my preferred order if there was a strict ordering anyway. the settings is my least favorite actually. and not elegant I concede. That might be the reason why it is shied upon too.. a big cluster of ties to all the modules, a cluster something source of future entanglements.....
I did not ask you to do that. I am only in the lichess forum. Where we can look from afar. and talk to you. I did not mean in other thread that user should stick to forum, and devs to github. that would be the opposite of my intent. I was saying, if that is the matter, that we may need to work out ideas here before going there, and that on the contrary of splitting the crowds, having some strains of devs also users mingling here might help making readable issues after a while there.... sorry if your "do that for me" was not in relation to that.
I could start a messy issue over there.. but i don't like to just focus one one issue and not consider the context... i would get lost. sometimes things can't be made simpler than their core complexity.. or sometimes one needs to look at a problem in a larger context to see the set of solution elements that together would solve a somewhat complex issue, but not individually.
In my previous post i may have started dissecting the issues this is orbiting around. I would need perhaps to iterate it better.
I would not want to make a mess over there, as not being a forum mindset to my limited experience. the things have to be almost already packaged. I don't have the ability to do that alone.
