[Question] About fcitx and the guidelines

[alex3236]

I have read #483 #616 and #1735 without any questions.

But, since they're all closed/reverted and locked, the problem is not solved.

So when I saw #1841, I'm confused - all issues and PRs about this problem are not available, and the new one have been closed too. Then how can we focus on this problem?

Although the author of #1735 says they'll try to fix it, but this should remain an open issue until it's fixed, no?

[DaveDavenport]

#1841 was closed as it did not follow the guidelines on multiple fronts.
The linked MR was open for feedback (I explicitly opened it)
and explains why it is not enabled by default.

Although the author of #1841 says they'll try to fix it,

I don't understand this one. the author of 1841 says nothing about fixing it?

but this should remain an open issue until it's fixed, no?

A valid issue will remain open. But the issue template clearly state that an issue where the submitter skipped over mandatory fields by filling in dummy information are closed. It would be unfair not to close the issue.

If you feel like you “it is simple and requires no explanation”, please
consider you’re wrong and still fill the full report. Any report
missing required informations will be labeled as “Incomplete Report -
Please follow the guidelines” and will be closed. If you ask a
question, enter dummy information in required fields to get passed the
checks or in general completely ignore the guidelines, the issue will
be closed and locked as spam.

[alex3236]

Sorry, I meant to say that the author of #1735 said they would try to fix it later.

I was confused because #483 didn't reopen after PR was reverted, and it's keep locked that no one could express any new suggestions or something. And #483 was not linked to the PR, if I was a careless newbie, I might have thought the problem was solved.😂

[DaveDavenport]

Sorry, I meant to say that the author of #1735 said they would try to fix it later.

They can still reply on the MR even if closed/locked by the bot.

I was confused because #483 didn't reopen after PR was reverted,

It was closed because I have a strong aversion to people ignoring guidelines and making pointless replies on issues bumping it, mailing me and many other peoples for no contribution. I really do not have the time to deal with it.

was confused because #483 didn't reopen after PR was reverted,

It was not reverted, please read the conversation in the MR and the issue you originally mentioned.
I did add a link to the MR in #483, thanks that was missing.

[alex3236]

It was closed because I have a strong aversion to people ignoring guidelines and making pointless replies on issues bumping it, mailing me and many other peoples for no contribution. I really do not have the time to deal with it.

Yeah, people do do things like that. It's hard to prevent though. Common issues attract common people.

It was not reverted, please read the conversation in the MR and the issue you originally mentioned.

No? I saw #1735 (comment) and assumed it was reverted, so didn't do any further search.

So the progression of this issue is that IME support was attempted, but resulted in slow response under certain circumstances, as it has until now. Am I understanding correctly?

[DaveDavenport]

Yes, but not for everybody. That is why it is currently a compile time option.

[alex3236]

Yes, but not for everybody. That is why it is currently a compile time option.

Clear. Thank you for your kind reply, I will keep an eye on it for further progress :)

[DaveDavenport]

I hope somebody that uses fcitx and can actually test its behavior will pick it up and improve it.
I never had a use for fcitx, I cannot properly test it and do not have the time to deep dive into it and to learn what I need to know to implement and test this .

[alex3236]

Unfortunately, although I am an fcitx user, I know little about its development. I can confirm that --enable-imdkit makes rofi appear laggy (keystroke feedback is not immediate), but I can't offer any suggestions on how to improve this :(

However, I did find a similar(?) problem on wezterm which have been solved: wez/wezterm#250 (comment)