Message: previous - next
Month: August 2012

Re: Re: [trinity-devel] kbugbuster

From: Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:25:40 +0200
On Friday 24 August 2012 17:52:42 Sl�vek Banko wrote:
> Dne p� 24. srpna 2012 Martin Gr��lin napsal(a):
> > I really think and hope that KDE and Trinity could collaborate. To make
> > it quite clear only Trinity would benefit from a closer collaboration.
> > From a KDE standpoint I could as well relax and wait till the annoyance
> > of the fork has died away.
> > 
> > But to get to a closer collaboration the Trinity developers have to
> > start to improve their relationship with KDE. Don't assume everything
> > KDE does is bad. Just look at your users argument above and how
> > ridiculous it is in the given context. It doesn't need me to realize
> > that this has been a ridiculous argument, you could have done as well
> > while writing it.
> Yes, sure, it might be useful to cooperate more. But your first request is
> always: "Drop the Trinity." Sorry, but this can not be called invitation
> to cooperation. Until you not change your attitude, so here you only
> wasted waving with their arguments.
Which is nothing I have ever written. Yes I asked you to drop the fork of KWin 
and I gave good arguments for that. And yes I will continue to ask you to drop 
ridiculous forks like the one to KWin.

What would I like to see the Trinity project being? Well a project which is 
not a fork. No application which is still developed by KDE should be forked 
without a good reason why a fork is needed. So far these reasons nobody was 
able to present here. And even if there were a reason to fork it should always 
be in the interest of all parties to overcome the fork.

I think there is a great possibility to collaborate if Trinity is no longer a 
fork but just about the "retaining the overall KDE 3.5 computing style". Keep 
KDesktop/Kicker and co, those things which got displaced and help making the 
KDE software which you think need improvements rock instead of forking. 
Working together instead of against each other.

I am happy to help you there to find a way back to the KDE community, to 
unfork. If you are interested I am happy to further outline a possible plan 
which will benefit Trinity (and not KDE).

Remember: forks are nothing good. So am I asking much if I ask you to drop the 
forking? I think no, I think it would be a good and important step for Trinity 
to no longer be a fork. Think about it. Think about the applications you 
forked and for each ask yourself what has been the reason to fork it. Think 
about whether it's helping your users. Think about whether it's on the long 
time the best solution for the users. Think about whether the energy put into 
the fork would have better helped the application to fix the reasons for the 
fork. Trinity developers always claim that they care about the users. So do 
that, think whether e.g. providing KWin 3 is caring about your user, whether 
that is really the best window manager you can offer.

And if you come to arguments which are based on the bad experience of early 
KDE 4.x versions, think about if the argument still holds when comparing with 
4.8 or 4.9.

Step aside from what you are doing. Question your own deeds. Question the 
assumptions you have. I have seen many wrong assumptions here on the mailing 
list. Things like Qt 4 developed for smart phones. Throw over bord all your 
assumptions or at least verify that they are true. If you did benchmarks throw 
them away because they are biased (you did the benchmark after all).

So with the words of IBM: THINK!

Best Regards

P.S. I don't want to see any reply to this mail in the next 24 hours. Please 
take the time to think about what I have written and think about the points I 
have outlined to think about.