trinity-devel@lists.pearsoncomputing.net

Message: previous - next
Month: August 2012

Re: Re: [trinity-devel] kbugbuster

From: Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:09:55 +0200
On Saturday 25 August 2012 15:41:40 Slávek Banko wrote:
> Sorry, but your behavior here is always hostile. And this we must accept
> from you? Sorry, no.
I am not hostile to you. I am trying to improve the situation of the fork. Yes 
part of that includes to unfork to make Trinity acceptable to the KDE 
community.

Please realize that I am basically the only one of the KDE project reaching 
out to Trinity. I want the communities to be one community. I want to overcome 
the hostile situation we are in caused by the Trinity fork. You know that KDE 
developers consider the fork performed as Trinity as hostile? You know that 
developers asked you to change names as they don't want that people think that 
its the same product? You know that many KDE developers are very concerned 
about the drop of quality? You know that many KDE developers fear that Trinity 
destroys the reputation of KDE 3? You know that many KDE developers feel it's 
an affront that Trinity devs talk about the KDE version which they have not 
developed as "their" app?

If it is a hostile act to ask you to rethink your forking strategy because you 
don't have the manpower to cary out the tasks previously done by hundreds of 
developers by a little bit more than a dozen, then sorry, then I'm hostile.
> Phillip is not trying to offend you, only give a
> comparison of your behavior.
well if comparing a person with a dictator is not an offense, well then I have 
a different understanding of offensive talk. Btw. it does not matter that it 
was not meant offensive (we don't know that because Philip has not replied 
yet), it only matters how the person being insulted feels about it. A simple 
sorry, was not meant that way clears matters up.
> It has no sense to continue until you will not
> change your attitude. As long as you're not respecting our project.
Your project? Keep in mind that the code of your project has been written by 
the KDE community.

But well you wanted respect for Trinity. I applaud any effort to keep 
Kicker/KDesktop (the KDE 3 "desktop computing") alive. I know and acknowledge 
that there are users disliking KDE Plasma. I would love to have something I 
could offer them to use.

That is what I would love Trinity to provide. That is what I am interested in 
to see. That is why I contacted the Trinity team in the first place.

But at the moment I cannot tell users disliking Plasma to use Trinity, because 
it includes forks of everything and the kitchen sink where KDE just has the 
better products. Think of KWin, Kate, Krita and so many more excellent KDE 
applications where the KDE 3 version is just on a different level.

Then there is the problem that I cannot tell users to use Trinity because it 
uses EOL-ed libraries like Qt 3. I have done my Computer Science Master degree 
at a Chair for Computer Security. I just cannot recommend anyone to use 
unmaintained libraries which are security relevant.

And that's just a pity. But you see I have an interest in Trinity. I hope that 
is enough shown respect.
> 
> Your words of help are always just empty talk, because they always have
> first claim "Drop Trinity" (either as a whole or parts). No, this can not
> be called as a help.
Think about whether its help or not. My first contact with this mailinglist 
was to ask you to use KWin instead of your fork, because you have not been 
able to maintain the window manager. I have shown you wrong commits, I have 
later on reviewed code to the fork. I offered you to get a well maintained 
codebase instead of something you have no expertise on. Well I call that help 
even if it includes dropping part of your fork. Want a list of bugs reported 
against KDE 3 and fixed in 4.9?

Recently I have told you here in this thread that KBugBuster has been dropped 
from KDE and given you the reasons which you were unaware about.

I think that's already quite some help.
> 
> 
> Our projects have a common ancestor - upstream - KDE3. But both of them go
> on their own way. With a common ancestor have the advantage that they can
> better collaborate => transfer enhancement between projects. And this is a
> thing where I see the opportunity to help each other.
good.
> 
> For KBugBuster is not our upstream KBugBuster in KDE4 - this is for
> KBugBuster a dead branch. KDE3 is closest upstream version - and just here
> we are following up. It will be our pleasure if result then you can take
> into your branch. But we are talking prematurely, because the result is not
> yet ;)
No you are wrong. KBugBuster used to be part of KDE-sdk till 4.5 - which is 
two years ago. Much younger than the 3.5 version Trinity forked. Also there 
had been some work which has not been finished going on by some students to be 
found in [1].

Best Regards
Martin

[1] http://websvn.kde.org/branches/work/kbugbuster-isi/KBugBuster-v2/

Attachments: