13 Feb
2012
13 Feb
'12
7:59 p.m.
On Monday 13 February 2012 14:51:25 Keith Daniels wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Martin Gräßlin
<mgraesslin(a)kde.org> wrote:
seems irrational, right. I still
offer you help, although I said so bad
things. Oh well, the world is not black and white :-)
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outdated, and that we are wasting our time.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? On Monday
13 February 2012 10:59:10 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> 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
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.
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?
How seriously twisted must
a mind be to even assume that another person would
have such motives. That is really disgusting what you just wrote.
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?
*rofl* checking simple facts helps. I received my commit rights
after the
release of 4.0. I have not written one single line of code for KDE 3.
Personally I think the worst thing we could do to someone with an ego
the size of his, is to totally ignore him.
why do you then even reply to a mail of
mine?
Cheers
Martin