Message: previous - next
Month: November 2011

Re: [trinity-devel] Appeal for freedom of speech

From: Julius Schwartzenberg <julius.schwartzenberg@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:46:09 +0100
Hi Ilya,

Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> On Sunday 13 November 2011 03:16:46 L0ner sh4dou wrote:
>>> It is pity that such project as KDE3 was cloned by an unstable paranoid psycho.
>> Until now i was a bystander and I didn't want to participate in this
>> discussion but now I'm getting feeling it's not anymore about which is
>> better/upstream/updated 
> It was never about which is better/upstream/updated.

It seems originally there were mainly miscommunications between you and
Robert. He already apologized for this. Timothy is also sensitive to
criticism and the discussion continued.

You both felt each other undervalues the work done by the other. In
addition the role of Trinity as successor of KDE3 or upstream of KDE3
was apparently not clear for everybody.
Many people online saw Trinity as upstream for KDE3 in a complete sense,
they expected full binary compatibility or they believed Trinity was the
appropriate place to discuss any packaged version of KDE3 that was being
kept up to date. At least Timothy, as the project lead, sees this
differently however. He sees Trinity as a continuation of KDE3 and sees
any promotion of other KDE3 builds as very inappropriate on the Trinity
mailing lists. In a similar fashion he would never write about Trinity
on the KDE4 mailing lists.

Of course this stance is also very debatable and one could argue that a
Trinity user could also very comfortably work with your OpenSUSE
packages if he would need to have a desktop on an OpenSUSE system. On
the other hand however, Timothy is the project lead and main supporter
and there are also multiple arguments that support his stance. Therefore
I think it's best to respect it. Unfortunately the Trinity project was
not very clear about taking this position. For example, also Trinity's
current version numbers also heavily contribute to this confusion and
they really need to be changed.

Due to this confusion, there were earlier conflicts when non-Trinity
KDE3 build were promoted on the Trinity mailing lists and this already
caused tension on both sides.

From now on it should hopefully be clear that Trinity really appreciates
cooperation with any KDE3 version, but that promotion of non-Trinity
releases is considered inappropriate on the Trinity mailing lists.

I understand that you stayed with patching the KDE3 source yourself,
because some of the changes in Trinity did not seem attractive. Two I
can come up with are binary incompatibility and maybe the huge TQt
overhaul of which the current goals are not so clear yet (at least on
the public site).
As you maybe saw on the pad as well (it was written before any
discussion started), it would be very interesting to hear your technical
reasons for staying away from Trinity for your builds.

I'm not fully sure what your plans are regarding your KDE3 packages. You
asked whether Trinity could be upstream. Timothy did offer to provide a
patch list in one mail. In the end it would depend on the definition of
upstream whether you consider such a patch list to be suitable or not.

I hope this mail clears up some things. Thank you very much for your
contributions so far and if you have more technical feedback (comments,
patches, etc.) on the project, I'm sure it would be very much appreciated.