On Monday 13 February 2012 14:51:25 Keith Daniels wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Martin Gr��lin <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?
seems irrational, right. I still offer you help, although I said so bad
things. Oh well, the world is not black and white :-)
> 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?
How seriously twisted must a mind be to even assume that another person would
have such motives. That is really disgusting what you just wrote.
> 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?
*rofl* checking simple facts helps. I received my commit rights after the
release of 4.0. I have not written one single line of code for KDE 3.
> Personally I think the worst thing we could do to someone with an ego
> the size of his, is to totally ignore him.
why do you then even reply to a mail of mine?