[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: KConfig object-orientification
From:       Charles Samuels <charles () kde ! org>
Date:       2001-11-03 3:48:20
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 02 November 2001 08:03 pm, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Friday 02 November 2001 05:23 pm, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > On Friday 02 November 2001 04:55 am, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > > On Don, 01 Nov 2001, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > > > I'm commiting this in an hour*, so this is your last chance to
> > > > complain.
> > >
> > > There were several complains, please read the mails on the list. I've
> >
> > No, there were none that I didn't correct.
> >
> > All Waldo said was that he "had a better idea" -- which I didn't like,
> > and answered quite meanly yes, but I think the ":P" explained that.
>
> I wrote:
> "It still rearranges the class structure which is unnecassery and
> unacceptable IMO. You also have a complete duplication of the KConfigBase
> API which really is unnecassery."
>
> Which part of "unacceptable" don't you understand?

The "IMO" part.  I didn't want to implement it because when we can break 
"source" compatiblity (KDE4), it'l be a weird and nasty API then.

>
> > This was backwards compatible from what I saw,  I've made final
> > corrections. I'm no longer spending time on this.  If you want KDE to
> > improve, you can actually be cooperative instead of reverting the commit,
> > and giving no reason why.
> >
> > I can't test this latest patch, because I'm tired of recompiling kdebase
> > and kdelibs.  So if you want to introduce this patch, you're going to
> > actually have to be cooperative.
> >
> > As Thomas said, KDE is based on a willingness to share, all I got was the
> > complaints of you (Dirk) and Waldo, lacking explanations, and no
> > improvements to my patch.
>
> I made some suggestions for improvements which you choose to ignore without
> giving any reason. Being one of the maintainers of KConfig I'm pretty
> pissed that you push your changes after I tell you that I don't like them.
> After Dirk rightfully reverted them you merily start to whine instead of
> listening what others are telling you.

"Great." -- David Faure (who then suggested I do something for compatibility)

"Then you have to wait till KDE 4.0 if no compatibility layer is there." -- 
Dirk Mueller (Then I reintroduced compatibility as he asked)

"I think the same can be achieved while keeping the current class-structure." 
-- Waldo Bastian (I respectfully disagreed, and continued with my present 
implementation)

>
> You write: "I'm no longer spending time on this.", I didn't ask you to
> spend time on this did I? If I recall correctly you were the one who wanted
> to have this done. I think it is a good idea as well but not in the form
> that you implemented it.

And I prefer my implementation. I don't see a point in implementing something 
that I don't like.

>
> You write: "I can't test this latest patch, because I'm tired of
> recompiling kdebase and kdelibs", then go to bed and come back when you are
> no longer tired and have time to properly test your work.

Well, today, I compiled kdelibs, compiled kdebase and get this:

kdecore (KLibLoader): WARNING: library=/usr/lib/libsocks.so: 
file=/usr/lib/libsocks.so: /usr/lib/libsocks.so: cannot open shared object 
file: No such file or directory

then a segfault.

See, after 3 hours of compiling, you know, I just sent the patch and gave up, 
especially after all this madness on the lists.

>
> I apreciate you work but I don't like your "my way or the highway" attitude
> at all.

It's not that at all, it's my way or your way, and I'm implementing my way.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]