[compiz] Re: [Fwd: Re: compiz coding style]

[Wulf C. Krueger]

Hello David et al!

"DR" == David Reveman <davidr at novell.com> writes:

 DR> They could have created a good website and community around the fdo
 DR> version of compiz. I don't see why creating a good website and
 DR> community forced them into maintaining there own version of compiz.

I'm sorry, David, but at the time when compiz-quinnstorm came up you
were as communicative as an oyster.

And if not there was an attitude issue...

,----
| DR> We can expose add all kinds of useless crap through options if we
| DR> want.
`----

... and the patch in question got into compiz-quinnstorm only. Well, it
was only "useless crap" users asked for anyway.

Dual-/multi-head support? After lots of inquiries you rudely brushed
that subject aside because "xinerama isn't really useful" and made it
pretty clear how much you valued the community:

,----
| DR> I wont accept any xinerama patches, if you like to use xinerama
| DR> until proper multi-screen support is implemented, you have to patch
| DR> things.
`----

All the time people tried to discuss integrating Quinnstorm's patches
and most of the time got snobby replies. The one that really made my day
was this one from last month, btw. 

,----
| DR> I haven't seen a lot of patches being sent to neither me or the
| DR> compiz list. Some of the few patches I've seen have been temporary
| DR> solutions or ugly workarounds for problems that have more proper
| DR> solutions. I'm definitely willing to accept patches but I wont push
| DR> in some ugly patch just because it adds some additional
| DR> functionality, I rather wait for the proper solution.
`----

Let me summarize (and finally comment on) this:

- You're too good to take a look a compiz-quinnstorm yourself.

- Some of those "temporary solutions" were for things people virtually
begged for for months (!).

- Basic functionality (i. e. multi-head support) didn't make it in
because you didn't like the code and the solution. I must say I like my
code clean, too, but then I don't value it higher than what people
*need*.

- You *wait* for the proper solution. To come from where? Fall from the
sky? Some better looking patch? Boy, I do have quite an ego and an
attitude but I get things going myself. I don't *wait* for the solution
bashing in my door...

Three days after the mail I quoted was written, Beryl was initially
announced. Coincidence? I doubt it.

 DR> My feeling is that the people behind the beryl fork never really
 DR> tried to work with me and the fdo version of compiz.

fdo-compiz suffered from communication and attitude problems from the
beginning. And now that you finally woke up (after Beryl emerged) you
have the guts to blame those who didn't *wait* for solutions but
*created* them? Amazing.

People tried to work with you and initiated discussions almost monthly
(check the archive yourself). Only after Beryl came up, though, you
really started to communicate more actively.

Answering questions about the direction you'd like compiz to go?
(<86lkswbj8q.fsf at ultimo.mailstation.de>)

Never answered.


Maybe the Beryl code is not up to academic (or your own) standards,
maybe there are things in there that were primarily born out of the
grief you caused yourself instead of technical reasons. I'm not too
happy about that either but I could fully understand it after having
followed both fdo-compiz' and Quinnstorm's half-fork's development for
months now.

I suggest you and some others on this list get over it (the fork) and
get back to the *technical* issues instead of blaming those who made the
fork. (Are themes really more important than "proper" multi-head
support?)

I apologize for my own rant here but having read these latest mails
about the fork I felt these things had to be said. 

-- 
Grüße, Wulf