On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...> wrote: > On Monday 13 February 2012 12:54:08 Timothy Pearson wrote: >> > On Monday 13 February 2012 10:59:10 Timothy Pearson wrote: >> >> I have repeatedly asked him for >> >> the technical reasons that he considers twin changes to have "broken" >> >> it, >> >> and I still do not have an answer. >> > >> > I pointed out to two incorrect commits in my very first mail to this >> > mailing >> > list. I have offered several times the help, I have told you that you can >> > ask >> > me any question about KWin. And now you complain that I never explained to >> > you >> > why the commits have broken KWin? Seriously you had enough time to ask, >> > and I >> > had expected that you would ask why it is wrong. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Martin >> >> Care to elaborate? I am willing to listen. Your original message was >> disregarded to some extent as you linked to changes that were made on >> purpose, and I usually expect people who claim something is wrong to make >> an attempt at stating *why( they think said something is wrong. > yes I know they are made on purpose, nevertheless they are wrong. It is quite > common that developers not knowing a codebase do things incorrectly. I will > now only elaborate on the two commits I outlined. In fact all commits I have > seen so far would not pass a review request for KWin and as I mentioned there > is at least one commit with the potential to prevent KWin from starting at > all. > > Let's start with 1f40ada: you modify the inline getter for keepAbove. This is > not how KWin internally works to have window being as keep above. The proper > method to go through is Client::setKeepAbove() which would also tell other > interested parties that the window is in fact kept above. This method is quite > important to use as it also takes care of putting the window into the correct > layer of the stacking order. I think you solved that by hacking the stacking > order. > > The simplest way to achieve what you actually wanted would have been to make > your "modal system notification" an override redirect window. > > The second commit I pointed out was 9cc1e2c1: I think others already commented > in my blog comments why this one is rather bad from a users point of view > (introducing new config options without removing the obsoleted ones). But well > the main issue from my point of view is that it modified an enum in a public > header by not appending to the end, but in the middle. I think you can imagine > what happens to 3rd party offerings compiled against the previous version. > > Cheers > Martin Let me see if I have this right.... Martin said publicly on his blog that we are "Haters", that we are outdated, and that we are wasting our time. Now why someone who obviously detest us and what we are doing, come to our site and try to help us with coding problems? Maybe it is because his article did not cause us to rant and rave enough to give him ammunition for more hate mongering on his blog? So maybe he came here and implied that we are incompetent and don't know what we are doing--hoping that will anger us enough to where we will say or do something stupid--so he can use it against us? Was he one of the original programmers for KDE 3 and one of the ones who never bothered to fix any of its bugs? If so, maybe why he is so upset with us is because we are trying to fix something he didn't, for whatever reason? Personally I think the worst thing we could do to someone with an ego the size of his, is to totally ignore him. Keith