> On Sunday 13 November 2011 00:57:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
>
>> The common theme is that they are relatively trivial, and especially
>> that
>> last one no claim of ownership can really be attached, as the latest
>> versions of GCC will demand that exact fix.
>
> ...which even led Arch to use older version of GCC for amarok in their
> repo
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25712
>

I should clarify that I am not ungrateful for the patches that you have
brought to our attention.  In fact I think all of us appreciate those
patches that you have submitted, as they brought minor issues to our
attention that may have not been noticed otherwise.

Since I cannot find the patch that I was referring to in a reasonable
amount of time I will retract my statement regarding HAL.  It is possible
that another person attempted to submit such a patch and I got it confused
over time.

However as far as I can tell we are both taking a different approach to
keeping the KDE3 interface alive.  Your approach does not work for this
project and our approach won't work for you, so the best thing is to keep
exchanging small patches between the projects where the underlying code
remains similar.  I am open to doing this, and even provide the patch list
on the Website to make it easier for people such as yourself to
cherry-pick specific patches.  I hope you will reciprocate in kind.

I think all of us would appreciate it if you do not come on the list with
accusatory statements regarding articles you found on the Internet.  From
what I can tell this is what started this whole mess, and it could have
easily been avoided by asking some simple, polite questions about our
binary compatibility policy, rather than making it sound like we have a
terminal flaw in how we are handling the code and demanding an answer.  I
realize that English is not your native language, however you do need to
be careful with the tone that is set in what you write, as native English
speakers pick up on an accusatory tone rather quickly.

Tim