On 04/20/2012 06:26 AM, Martin Gr��lin wrote: > Hi all, > > I had to see that there is still development going on in your fork of KWin and > I am very unhappy about that. This is something I really want to see resolved, > any development to KWin should happen in KWin, it's such a waste to work on > the same project without coordination. > > Let's first recapture the state of TWin: > = Why does TWin exist? = > Because KWin got forked together with everything else from KDE 3.5 to form the > Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE). > > = Why has the TDE fork happened? = > The TDE fork existist because of a combination of the following reasons: > * Parts of KDE had to be rewritten in order to be ported to Qt 4 > * Early versions of KDE 4.x were lacking functionality compared to KDE 3.5 > * Early versions of KDE 4.x had quality and stability issues compared to KDE > 3.5 > * A general disagreement with some project decisions > * KDE 4.x introduced new technologies unliked by some (e.g. Nepomuk or > Akonadi) > > = Do these reasons hold for KWin? = > No! None of the reasons stated above has ever been true for KWin. KWin is a > direct continuation of the KDE 3 version. The codebase did not get rewritten, > the quality of the window manager did not suffer, new functionality got added > as optional addons. > > = Is there any other reason justifying the TWin fork? = > Maybe the fact that KWin depends on Qt4/kdelibs4 which is not liked by TDE. > > = Is that a reason for a hostile fork as it is at the moment? = Whoa, whoa whoa.... Martin -- hang on, I think you have the wrong idea concerning the TDE fork. I am in agreement that there is no reason to duplicate work and if there is a way to collaborate that helps kwin/twin, then that is something that should we should do. Note, these are my thoughts and not the thoughts of TDE. In reading though your post, I see the good intent and the opportunity for both projects to do something good, but I was struck by a few of your comments. Now, I understand, I may not have gleaned from reading the intent you meant to convey, but there are several point I want to comment on. "A 'hostile' fork?", that strikes me as a laughable attempt to rewrite history. TDE is a group of good people doing good work trying to support the continuation of a desktop they prefer as a 'matter of choice' for their Linux desktop. Never forget: (1) any group of people have an absolute right to fork any OSS project at any time consistent with any applicable licensing agreements for any purpose what so ever; and (the way I saw it -- yes I was there) (2) kde turned kde3 into a bastard child of a desktop, completely disowning and disavowing the 'old' code in its own fork that went off chasing plasma eyecandy widgets and a dumbed-down desktop UI that prioritized form and glitz well above core user function. It did so in a manner that maligned anyone who voiced an opinion that they preferred the kde3 interface to kde4. (not to mention the outright hostile responses on the kde mailing list to anyone mentioning anything to do with kde3 that I 'personally' was on the receiving end of) The Berlin meeting in March 2005 held largely in secret with 15 or so in attendance marked the radical departure of kde away from kde3 and toward an 'experiment' to create a completely new desktop built around the Oxygen, Marble and Plasma projects. Those 15 at Berlin, decided on a fork that ignored, to a large extent, the needs and desires of the kde community essentially usurping a community project to satisfy the whims of a few to experiment with what they wanted in a desktop notwithstanding the 'choice' of the community. A fine goal to be sure, but beginning in 2008, it was to give us all a lesson in how NOT to manage an OSS project by releasing the first 'official' non-beta release of KDE 4.0. The joke (on the kde user base) was that 4.0 was barely alpha-quality code when 'officially' released that lacked nearly all usable features of kde 3.5, had horrible crippled implementations of core desktop tools (konqueror file manager -- relied upon for years by users), and was in short -- was unusable. While at the same time pressuring all major Linux distributions to discontinue kde3 by halting all support for the 'old' version (kde 3.5.10 released only months earlier) Four years later, kde4 still struggles to provide a usable replacement for the kdePIM. > No, the fact that TWin requires Qt 3 is no reason to have the current state > with the hostile fork. Best would be a solution of no fork, but a > collaborative friendly fork should be possible, given that KWin and TWin share > a large code base. Here is where you and I agree. Our effort should be focused on a port of kde3 kwin (along with all its desktop styles, look and feel, etc.), to the Qt4 environment. The problem is there are many shortcomings in Qt4 that prevent adaption of the existing code. A glaring example is the column widget in Qt4 (such as used in konqueror file manager - detailed view) has never been capable of correctly handling column sizing (especially the rightmost column) and has failed to provide any consistent persistence in column size. That is merely the tip of the iceberg. While I agree that ultimately, this port to Qt4 is the future for TDE, this type of limitation makes focusing on the port now an effort in futility. I'm sure if these problem were coordinated with Riverbank, they could be overcome. But, as with anything when relying on a 3rd party toolset, the timing of when this will take place is something that is out of our control. It comes down to this. The existing TDE codebase, built on Qt3/TQt3 allows for the continued development of TDE with its traditional look and feel and without the additional layer of uncertainty that comes with using a toolset that is still in a state of flux. Continuing TDE development on TQt3 is something that is doable now -- not at some faroff time in the future whenever Riverbank decides to fix the shortcomings with Qt4 that will allow a port to function properly on that toolset. > > = What can KDE do about the fork? = > Actually pretty much nothing. The license allows TDE to fork KWin - whether we > like it or not. All we can do is force you to change the name and urge you to > work together with us. > We agree. We have all licked our wounds from the battle of the direction kde should take and are willing to do what is best for both desktops, TDE and KDE. There is no question that if what you are offering is a willingness to embrace effort to help bring TDE back into KDE as something like "KDE-Classic" then it makes perfect sense from a resource standpoint to see if we can find common-ground and a path forward that will meet the needs of both communities. But understand, TDE is a project we are proud of that continues to meet the needs of those that prefer, 'as a matter of choice', the functionality that the kde3 interface provides. After being told (as a community) by kde.org "it's my way or the highway - kde3 is dead", you can understand the skepticism that many may feel in getting back in bed with you. However, collaboration and further development benefits everyone. Even if it ends in failure, there are many lessons learned and the code, in some respect, is advanced regardless. > = Why do I actually care? = > The KWin development team is rather small. I would like to see more involvment > inside KWin than to see duplicated work in a fork. > > Furthermore KWin 3.5 has a very good reputation and is known as rock solid. I > see this reputation questioned if the TWin fork is continued without the > quality checks performed in the KWin development. > This is a good argument - but it is just that - an argument. A desktop either provides sufficient checks to be stable or it doesn't run. Quality checks? Recall the official release of KDE 4.0.4? > Lets have a look at the recent patch for TWin called "Mac Like Switching > Panel". This introduces a new feature to switch through applications and > references an implementation in window maker. To be clear: this functionality > has been present in KWin since version 4.4 (I added it). A little bit of > coordination here would have prevented the duplication of development. > This is smart. Martin, this is exactly the type of collaboration that is open and welcomed without qualification. To do this we should identify those features (current or planned) in TDE that are the same or similar to what exists in kwin and make sure the implementations are the same. Beginning this now will just ease the transition in the future to Qt4. > But is there a problem when Trinity adds code, should I care? Well the code is > wrong (review based on patch2.patch on mailing list). In an attempt to copy > everything from window maker code got added to KWin (particular readClass) > which already existed. Lack of knowledge about the KWin source code are > probably the reason that it is unknown that > KWin::Client::resourceName()/resourceClass() provide the window class > attribute. > Again, this is a great opportunity for getting it done right the first time. If code implementation can be consistent from the beginning, it just helps in the end. > Another problem is that the code is crashy. For me as an experienced KWin > developer I only need to look at the code and see immediately were it is > likely that the code will crash. Consider that start is NULL and the following > line of code: start->readClass(). > If you and Will have time, please help out. You are correct -- your experience as a kwin developer is 'valued' and likely exceeds the combined kwin experience of everyone here. There is no replacement for experience to help guide development. If there is something that we can do better, please let us know. In looking to coordinate the development between twin/kwin, one of the first helpful undertakings would be to identify those areas in twin that can/should be changed or rewritten to work better now as well as work when transitioned to Qt4. > How likely is it that a non KWin developer would have spotted this crashy > code? How likely is it that you know how to create such a situation? (I know > it exactly). > > It is not surprising that you are not able to add code to KWin which is > correct - hardly anybody not knowing the code base is able to do so. That's > why we perform code review and help new developers to get the code into a > state that it works correctly. We are happy to accept patches from the Trinity > team to KWin as well (of course we only accept patches for current master). > The important difference is that in KWin there is a quality assurance through > the code review by *experienced* KWin developers. This is impossible in TDE as > there are no experienced developers for KWin. Everyone has a right to vent, but if we are going to make positive progress going forward, let's just agree to be candid and respectful between projects. We are all here to learn and help, but no one is here to be insulted. Again, these comments are mine and not the comments of the project. I believe that coordination and collaboration is a win-win for twin/kwin (pardon the pun), and I look forward to it benefiting the codebase. I agree with you that an ultimate transition/port to Qt4 is the future. At present Qt3 provides a working and workable toolset for TDE. What I am most interested in is your thoughts on how best to transition twin to kwin. I have thoughts from other kwin devs, but I'm interested in what order and how best you see it can be done. In short -- what do you propose? I am also interested in the thoughts of the TDE community on this issue as well. > > Now I'm not writing this mail to blame you for writing wrong code. If I would > be "evil" I would sit back, relax and wait to see TDE hit the wall which is > approaching faster and faster when crashy code gets added. Remember: one of > the reasons for Trinity is the (no longer) bad quality of KDE 4 code. And you > even use that in your external communication - such crashy changes might > backfire and then you cannot blame KDE. > Why then to you still have to press 'F9' twice to have the folder pane appear in 'konqueror --profile filemanagement' every time it is opened?? Yes -- in upstream. Regardless -- I am in full agreement that the blame-game is unproductive, and I again think you miss the point if you believe that the reason for TDE's existence is because kde4 is crashy -- for me it's not. For me it because I can't stand the kde4 UI. That's why I like twin -- as a matter of choice. If there is a way to have twin migrate back into the supported codebase, then that is worth discussing. If there is a way to benefit and help the twin transition to Qt4 while maintaining the look, feel and functionality of twin -- let's do it. > I'm here now to resolve this issue about TWin together with you. I want to see > the hostile fork go away. From all we see TDE is unable to maintain or even > develop TWin. Please accept this fact as it is. It is nothing bad, I needed > three years of strong involvment in KWin developer before becoming maintainer > and there are still large areas of code blocks where I have no clue about. > Again, it is not a hostile fork - it is what OSS is all about. When kde.org decided to disown kde3, and dropped all support for it, OSS did what it was designed to do - it provided for the continuation of what we believe is the finest desktop ever created - through a fork to tde. Linus is smiling... The following is for those that know to comment on. > Based on that fact we have to look for a solution. In my opinion the best > would be to just use our KWin. And we have some quite useful things about that > in our current development version: > * no longer depends on anything else from kde-workspace > * build options to disable "KDE 4" features (see > http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KWin/Build_Options) > * mostly runtime dependencies to libplasma > * desktop integration possible through custom QML additions like e.g. Alt+Tab > * currently integrates with three desktop shells > * (under review) build option to change the name of the binary, which would > allow you to generate a kwin_tde or twin binary (automatic adjustment of all > configuration files, etc.) (see https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104299/) > * after feature freeze: branch to build kwin standalone without the need to > run cmake in kde-workspace. > > As you can see this is a rather impress list of features which would allow TDE > to use KWin instead of their fork. > > Of course KWin depends on Qt 4 and kdelibs 4. We have no interest to support > anything below Qt 4.7 and are currently preparing the transition to Qt 5 and > KDE Frameworks 5. I think that this is only a minor issue to Trinity as to my > understanding TDE can also use Qt 4. > > We are open to discuss any concerns regarding integration a Qt4/kdelibs4 based > application into TDE. I am very sure that most of your possible concerns are > rather non-issues and that they can all be easily resolved. > > I hope that you consider dropping your hostile fork of KWin and start to > collaborate with your upstream pears at KDE more closely. > > Thanks for your time > > Martin Gr��lin > KWin maintainer -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.