no explanation for "FormAssembly.com" in Normal forms section
Nikronic opened this issue · comments
Hello
Actually, it is not a big deal, just some formatting. There is no description for FormAssembly in Normal Forms section.
I went to look for who had introduced that line, and turns out it was @agarrharr himself in a7c0162 😄
@Nikronic what would you suggest as a description for that link?
Awesome but expensive forms!
Actually, I am not a web developer, so I do not know what should be highlighted in the description.
From the text in the website, and after removing a ton of marketing speak, I came up with the following description using their words:
a web form creation and integration solution for enterprises, including integration with Salesforce.
How does this sound, @Nikronic / @agarrharr?
(Personally, I'm not sure they qualify as awesome, but that's a judgment I'll leave @agarrharr to make.)
@Nikronic why did you close this?
Because adding a simple description does not take two month. And after all, I opened this issue in 1 Novemeber for the first time and I closed issue a week ago because I thought this repository no longer maintenance. And exactly after I closed issue, the owner opened it again! WTF!
And now I am sure.
@Nikronic if the issue is not addressed, why shouldn't it remain open? That's precisely the purpose of an issue tracker: open issues should refer to those who aren't yet addressed.
As for why this change wasn't done yet: note that your feedback was requested for a possible fix in a comment above, and you never replied. If you didn't think your opinion should matter for the decision, you could have said so instead of remaining silent. I'm puzzled at why you're mentioning a lack of action from others when you have yourself done the same.
Besides, if the silence of others bothered you, it would be more helpful to mention that than to simply close the issue out of frustration. It's very hard to figure out what people really mean across the internet, and not saying things makes communication extra hard.
In any case, I'd be happy to submit the fix myself, if you agree with the description I proposed above.
By the way, I am not sure how familiar you are with the open source development model, but one of the key principles is that users are welcome to participate in the project, rather than be passive consumers as in typical closed-source projects, being limited to reporting issues and waiting for them to be fixed. In fact, people scratching their own itches without requiring the permission of maintainers is precisely how these projects are able to progress as they do. If everything depended on volunteer maintainers, the bottleneck would make most open source projects unfeasible.
I finally got around to this. Sorry for the delay. I wanted to keep the issue open as a reminder.