On Monday 13 February 2012 15:01:18 Robert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:53, Martin GräÃlin mgraesslin@kde.org wrote:
Sure, as I mentioned all commits would not pass review, hardly anyone
is
only close to correct. You are not a window manager developer - that's nothing bad. Hardly anyone is actually developing window managers. It took me more than a year to understand KWin. It is no surprise that
you -
given the amount of code you have to handle, are not able to properly develop it. Think about that we develop the window manager in a peer reviewed style and hardly any commit just enters the tree. Also we
have
hundreds of developers testing our code right from the day it enters master, have thousands of beta testers and much much more
infrastructure
to handle the development of critical code pathes.
That's why it would be important to switch to KWin. It would seriously improve the quality for your users and as it has been stated here more than once, that's what you care about :-)
Martin, please hear my request:
Instead of telling us how great KDE's infrastructure and community is compared to ours, please give us information that can further our development, such as bugs and code snippets. For instance, you have not told us how our code can move in the direction that could possibly bring us into compat with KWin.
that's quite simple: rm -rf twin, git pull kde-workspace
You cannot get twin even close to KWin due to lack of manpower. I have written it before, I say it again: the KWin developer community is larger than the Trinity developer community. In 2011 we had more than 800 commits by 49 individual contributors and fixed ~200 bugs, some of them present since KDE 3.
If you want to get a superb window manager get in touch with us to help tailor KWin for your needs. I offered you several times a separate branch were Trinity specific patches could go. Making KWin compile standalone is something I personally would consider as useful. This is way more efficient and useful than trying to develop twin.
Our community is small and I find it very sad to see commits done to an outdated fork. Seeing duplicated work by fixing bugs again. Seeing users still getting bugs we have fixed years ago. This makes me really, really sad.
Cheers Martin
I outlined the steps to replace twin many, many times. I need to be sure that nothing will break, and that means that for now twin has to stick around. I will need to see support for some of the twin-specific features (i.e. decorated modal system dialogs), and will leave it up to you to handle the specific implementation under kwin4 if you wish.
I am already doing what I can to make TDE coexist with Qt4, which will in turn open up the possibility of embedding KDE4 kcontrol modules in TDE's Control Center.
Basically, if people could just stay civil and learn to work together (that means being *patient* as well) TDE and KDE4 could actually start to integrate chunks of each other's code to, as stated, reduce the duplication of effort.
However, twin will NEVER be completely deleted. Why? I don't like relying on an upstream project (KDE) that has a history of seriously breaking things in new releases (history is history and cannot be changed). We need something to fall back on if kwin turns out to have serious problems (e.g. on certain graphics hardware), even if twin's codebase is never touched again.
Does this make sense? Do you fundamentally disagree with some part of it?
Tim