Re: Re: Re: Re: [trinity-devel] kbugbuster

On Thursday 23 August 2012 15:47:35 Timothy Pearson wrote: I think I asked in my previous mail why that is a problem. Let me check: "And even if what is so bad about an extra dependency? Can someone explain that please? And if you try to do so, please also think about the current cost of disk space (according to Wikipedia 3.5¢/GB in 2011) and RAM doesn't matter as an app only pulls in what it really links anyway." So could you please elaborate on that. I really want to understand it. *sigh* it was you telling that it looks different if used two toolkits and that this is a reason to have a fork. Now I showed you that you can have a style which looks exactly the same on three different toolkits. Basically I prooved your argument being wrong. What's your reply: it's ugly. Seriously? What's that for an argument? First of all it's completely irrelevant in the discussion and second of all it's highly subjective. Who cares what you think a style looks like? and what has that to do with the discussion? You said that two toolkits (KDE 3 and 4) are bad because they look different. I show you a toolkit supporting KDE 3, 4 and GTK and your answer is it does not support GTK3. Seriously? What's that for an argument? Is KBugBuster nowadays written in GTK 3 that it matters? And even if I consider that this would be a valid argument, where is the Trinity GTK 3 style? (I can play as badly as you and twisting arguments, that's fun isn't it?) yeah the old "KDE doesn't care about its users argument". Easy to repeat and hardly to contradict because you have thousands of examples where KDE does not care about the users. So you asked me to think about it. And the first thing I noticed is that you obviously did not think about it, because then you would have realized that the targeted usergroup of kbugbuster are not users but KDE developers. You can realize that by the fact that it lives in kdesdk for one thing, then that it is a tool to manage bugs, but not to report bugs and so on. So the targeted user groups the KDE developers do not care about is themselves. Now what could be reasons that the KDE developers do no longer care about KBugBuster? Most likely because nobody sees a motivating factor to work on it. Maybe it is because web-applications are more common today for usage than when KBugBuster was initially written (think about Facebook and co). Maybe the Internet connections are nowadays better, so that you don't need an offline application to work with a bugtracker (IIRC KBugBuster still uses the email interface to bugzilla instead of xml/json web client). Maybe it's because bugzilla's webinterface is nowadays really good and does not suck badly requiring a desktop application. 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. As long as Trinity developers bring up ridiculous justifications for their fork there cannot be a collaboration. As long as Trinity bring in arguments which are clearly wrong and harmful to the KDE community by spreading FUD (nothing else the users argument is) the fork while be perceived as an enemy and that is nothing the Trinity developers can want. So I kindly ask you to take a step back from what you do and think about it. It's not pure chance that I chimed in the thread about KBugBuster to ask for the reason to work on the fork instead of working upstream. Best Regards Martin Gräßlin