[compiz] Patchs criterias

[Thomas Liebetraut]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Wulf C. Krueger schrieb:
> If I were you, I'd just branch "officially" and compete.
>
> Reading this mailing list, a few others, Gentoo & Ubuntu forums, etc.
> it seems pretty clear to me which version the users prefer currently.
> :-)
Besides what Quinn already mentioned, a branch that could compete with
upstream Xgl would need X developers that are as skilled as David
Reveman and the other guys that work on Xgl. We currently are more
focussing on improving Compiz.
I'm also sure that David has his reasons for not accepting every patch.
David is still the person who knows Compiz better than any person who
has ever written a line of code for it, and he knows what will work,
what will be stable and what will blend perfectly into the current
codebase. I don't, if I speak for myself, and I doubt that many others
do. I agree with you that currently the community-based versions
(Quinn's and CoffeeBuzz's repos/overlays) are preferred, but that may
change as soon as it turns out that Community-Compiz becomes unstable or
turns out to be "spaghetti code" and not maintainable anymore.

That's why I would appreciate informations about the patch standards,
too, because it's somehow frustrating to know beforehand that the work
you did during the last weeks will end up in the trash can and someone
else rewrites your patch from scratch.

As far as my work on g-w-d is concerned, it is almost a complete rewrite
and I use the naming conventions that I'm used to and that seem sensible
to me and no one can keep me from doing this.

So long...
Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEnouExVmZpTAq4IgRAnH+AJ4+ijYE4bxC0+PUYKBlVlYhmatk+gCfS2KB
mGlcuT4tJnYBlgse7XHw27E=
=5nvt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----