13 Feb
2012
13 Feb
'12
7:51 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin(a)kde.org> wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2012 12:54:08 Timothy Pearson
wrote:
yes I know they
are made on purpose, nevertheless they are wrong. It is quite
common that developers not knowing a codebase do things incorrectly. I will
now only elaborate on the two commits I outlined. In fact all commits I have
seen so far would not pass a review request for KWin and as I mentioned there
is at least one commit with the potential to prevent KWin from starting at
all.
Let's start with 1f40ada: you modify the inline getter for keepAbove. This is
not how KWin internally works to have window being as keep above. The proper
method to go through is Client::setKeepAbove() which would also tell other
interested parties that the window is in fact kept above. This method is quite
important to use as it also takes care of putting the window into the correct
layer of the stacking order. I think you solved that by hacking the stacking
order.
The simplest way to achieve what you actually wanted would have been to make
your "modal system notification" an override redirect window.
The second commit I pointed out was 9cc1e2c1: I think others already commented
in my blog comments why this one is rather bad from a users point of view
(introducing new config options without removing the obsoleted ones). But well
the main issue from my point of view is that it modified an enum in a public
header by not appending to the end, but in the middle. I think you can imagine
what happens to 3rd party offerings compiled against the previous version.
Cheers
Martin
Let me see if I have this right....
Martin said publicly on his blog that we are "Haters", that we are
outdated, and that we are wasting our time.
Now why someone who obviously detest us and what we are doing, come to
our site and try to help us with coding problems?
Maybe it is because his article did not cause us to rant and rave
enough to give him ammunition for more hate mongering on his blog? So
maybe he came here and implied that we are incompetent and don't know
what we are doing--hoping that will anger us enough to where we will
say or do something stupid--so he can use it against us?
Was he one of the original programmers for KDE 3 and one of the ones
who never bothered to fix any of its bugs? If so, maybe why he is so
upset with us is because we are trying to fix something he didn't, for
whatever reason?
Personally I think the worst thing we could do to someone with an ego
the size of his, is to totally ignore him.
Keith
On Monday
13 February 2012 10:59:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Care to elaborate? I am willing to listen. Your original message was
disregarded to some extent as you linked to changes that were made on
purpose, and I usually expect people who claim something is wrong to make
an attempt at stating *why( they think said something is wrong. I have repeatedly asked him for
the technical reasons that he considers twin changes to have "broken"
it,
and I still do not have an answer.
I pointed out to two incorrect commits in my very first mail to this
mailing
list. I have offered several times the help, I have told you that you can
ask
me any question about KWin. And now you complain that I never explained to
you
why the commits have broken KWin? Seriously you had enough time to ask,
and I
had expected that you would ask why it is wrong.
Cheers
Martin