Re: [trinity-devel] 01 February 2012 Meeting Notes

Am 01.02.2012 20:47, schrieb Robert Xu: Before misinformation about KWin spread, I dare to speak up. Personally I hate statements without checking facts. KWin neither requires Akonadi nor Nepomuk. My CI-system has neither one installed. But to give proof: martin@martin-thinkpad:~$ aptitude show kde-window-manager | grep akonadi martin@martin-thinkpad:~$ aptitude show kdebase-runtime | grep akonadi martin@martin-thinkpad:~$ aptitude show kdebase-workspace-bin | grep akonadi martin@martin-thinkpad:~$ So this should not at all be a problem for Trinity - yeah \o/ :-) again checking facts first, helps. You are mistaken. Of course KWin uses kde4 libs, but nothing so critical that I would not suggest to you to use KWin instead of your fork. In fact I did an in dep analysis whether we could go for a Qt4-only version just last week. I decided to postpone to after frameworks 5 due to many kDebug statements. But apart from that the usage is rather small and could easily be ifdefed. I think I offered you to use a special branch in kde-workspace and I have a CI-system which can ensure that the branch does not break. I find it odd that you question the stating of one of the devs who really knows the code. If you are interested in the bugs: our bug tracker and version control system is open. Feel free to search :-) no! We did not start over! The window manager is unchanged - except less bugs! We added a compositor which is orthogonal to the window manager and of course we introduced bugs there. But we also fixed them. At least there are less bugs in KWin's compositor than in kcompmgr used by trinity (btw. the developer of kcompmgr is one of the core contributor to todays compositor). Feel free to watch my blog where I soon will show some stats about the development history since 4.0. It shows nicely that the window manager is hardly changed. No! KWin has no focus on being a "fancy effects type manager". Yes we have fancy effects, because there is user demand, but we have none of the fancy effects supported by default. Yes of course we make use of features of Qt 4.7. Why shouldn't we? It's a great release and I can only recommend you to make usage of it :-) If you have questions about KWin please ask, but please don't base any decisions on wrong information. Unfortunately none of the statements by kb9vqf in regards of KWin has been correct. I have no idea who is behind this nickname and I personally don't care. Once again I can only recommend you to use KWin instead of twin. KWin 4 is a continuation of KWin 3 and not a rewrite. The KWin team has more active contributors than people had been active in your latest meeting :-) Kind Regards Martin Gräßlin KWin maintainer