24 Aug
2012
24 Aug
'12
4:25 p.m.
On Friday 24 August 2012 17:52:42 Slávek Banko wrote:
Dne pá 24. srpna 2012 Martin Gräßlin napsal(a):
Which is nothing I have ever written. Yes I
asked you to drop the fork of KWin
and I gave good arguments for that. And yes I will continue to ask you to drop
ridiculous forks like the one to KWin.
What would I like to see the Trinity project being? Well a project which is
not a fork. No application which is still developed by KDE should be forked
without a good reason why a fork is needed. So far these reasons nobody was
able to present here. And even if there were a reason to fork it should always
be in the interest of all parties to overcome the fork.
I think there is a great possibility to collaborate if Trinity is no longer a
fork but just about the "retaining the overall KDE 3.5 computing style". Keep
KDesktop/Kicker and co, those things which got displaced and help making the
KDE software which you think need improvements rock instead of forking.
Working together instead of against each other.
I am happy to help you there to find a way back to the KDE community, to
unfork. If you are interested I am happy to further outline a possible plan
which will benefit Trinity (and not KDE).
Remember: forks are nothing good. So am I asking much if I ask you to drop the
forking? I think no, I think it would be a good and important step for Trinity
to no longer be a fork. Think about it. Think about the applications you
forked and for each ask yourself what has been the reason to fork it. Think
about whether it's helping your users. Think about whether it's on the long
time the best solution for the users. Think about whether the energy put into
the fork would have better helped the application to fix the reasons for the
fork. Trinity developers always claim that they care about the users. So do
that, think whether e.g. providing KWin 3 is caring about your user, whether
that is really the best window manager you can offer.
And if you come to arguments which are based on the bad experience of early
KDE 4.x versions, think about if the argument still holds when comparing with
4.8 or 4.9.
Step aside from what you are doing. Question your own deeds. Question the
assumptions you have. I have seen many wrong assumptions here on the mailing
list. Things like Qt 4 developed for smart phones. Throw over bord all your
assumptions or at least verify that they are true. If you did benchmarks throw
them away because they are biased (you did the benchmark after all).
So with the words of IBM: THINK!
Best Regards
Martin
P.S. I don't want to see any reply to this mail in the next 24 hours. Please
take the time to think about what I have written and think about the points I
have outlined to think about.
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.
Yes, sure, it might be useful to cooperate more. But your first request is
always: "Drop the Trinity." Sorry, but this can not be called invitation
to cooperation. Until you not change your attitude, so here you only
wasted waving with their arguments.