> On Monday 13 February 2012 15:01:18 Robert Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:53, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
>> wrote:
>> > Sure, as I mentioned all commits would not pass review, hardly anyone
>> is
>> > only close to correct. You are not a window manager developer - that's
>> > nothing bad. Hardly anyone is actually developing window managers. It
>> > took me more than a year to understand KWin. It is no surprise that
>> you -
>> > given the amount of code you have to handle, are not able to properly
>> > develop it. Think about that we develop the window manager in a peer
>> > reviewed style and hardly any commit just enters the tree. Also we
>> have
>> > hundreds of developers testing our code right from the day it enters
>> > master, have thousands of beta testers and much much more
>> infrastructure
>> > to handle the development of critical code pathes.
>> >
>> > That's why it would be important to switch to KWin. It would seriously
>> > improve the quality for your users and as it has been stated here more
>> > than once, that's what you care about :-)
>>
>> Martin, please hear my request:
>>
>> Instead of telling us how great KDE's infrastructure and community is
>> compared to ours, please give us information that can further our
>> development, such as bugs and code snippets. For instance, you have
>> not told us how our code can move in the direction that could possibly
>> bring us into compat with KWin.
> that's quite simple: rm -rf twin, git pull kde-workspace
>
> You cannot get twin even close to KWin due to lack of manpower. I have
> written
> it before, I say it again: the KWin developer community is larger than the
> Trinity developer community. In 2011 we had more than 800 commits by 49
> individual contributors and fixed ~200 bugs, some of them present since
> KDE 3.
>
> If you want to get a superb window manager get in touch with us to help
> tailor
> KWin for your needs. I offered you several times a separate branch were
> Trinity specific patches could go. Making KWin compile standalone is
> something
> I personally would consider as useful. This is way more efficient and
> useful
> than trying to develop twin.
>
> Our community is small and I find it very sad to see commits done to an
> outdated fork. Seeing duplicated work by fixing bugs again. Seeing users
> still
> getting bugs we have fixed years ago. This makes me really, really sad.
>
> Cheers
> Martin

I outlined the steps to replace twin many, many times.  I need to be sure
that nothing will break, and that means that for now twin has to stick
around.  I will need to see support for some of the twin-specific features
(i.e. decorated modal system dialogs), and will leave it up to you to
handle the specific implementation under kwin4 if you wish.

I am already doing what I can to make TDE coexist with Qt4, which will in
turn open up the possibility of embedding KDE4 kcontrol modules in TDE's
Control Center.

Basically, if people could just stay civil and learn to work together
(that means being *patient* as well) TDE and KDE4 could actually start to
integrate chunks of each other's code to, as stated, reduce the
duplication of effort.

However, twin will NEVER be completely deleted.  Why?  I don't like
relying on an upstream project (KDE) that has a history of seriously
breaking things in new releases (history is history and cannot be
changed).  We need something to fall back on if kwin turns out to have
serious problems (e.g. on certain graphics hardware), even if twin's
codebase is never touched again.

Does this make sense?  Do you fundamentally disagree with some part of it?

Tim