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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Removal of Pixie?
From:       Matthias Posseldt <matthi () gmx ! li>
Date:       2001-06-16 18:50:01
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 17 June 2001 07:24, mosfet wrote:

> Tell that to the release maintainer... and calling me a "5yr old" isn't
> really an effective way to convince me to work with you guys anymore,
> either ;-)
>
> People can of course still of course contribute translations,
> documentation and bugfixes, and I'll probably set up a CVS independent
> of KDE. These contributions are very welcome and important, but other
> than minor bugfix contributions they are the *only* contributions made.
> Nothing really code-wise. The only real benefit of keeping Pixie in CVS
> was the translators and documenters, who do a really good job, but they
> don't have to work outside of KDE CVS. It will still use KDE
> documentation and translations format if they still wish to contribute.

I just think about the current user base: If you have your modules (all code 
you wrote) in the desktop environment for X with the largest user base, you 
will get many suggestions, bug fixes, translations and other contributions. 
If you decide to do it all yourself, your current user base will stall (only 
those not upgrading to KDE 2.2) and only few people will find your homepage 
to download the most current release. So the contributions in any form will 
shrink, and you do the contrary to what is intended by Open Source Software, 
where a large user base is a plus.

> I also really wouldn't suggest forking my code and reimporting into CVS.
> If developers decide they want to do something else with their
> applications and remove it from the KDE packages, and you decide to fork
> it and import unofficial and unmaintained versions, your asking for a
> lot more problems. Putting applications in CVS without the authors
> permission or consent is a bad idea, and it would be better for users
> for them to use RPM's of official versions, not a KDE CVS fork.

Why is it such a bad idea? gcc forked into gcc and egcs, and later they 
remerged their code, and the result is ok.
Here in the KDE CVS there is a huge user base, and certainly there will be 
someone reviewing your code and patching the CVS.

So, I suggest that you think about it a bit, since you cannot forbid that 
anyone forks your code (GPL). Think about what would happen if David or Waldo 
would quit their work here because someone says that there are still errors 
in their packages and they could change something. KDE is a democratic 
project I think, so there are wishes, and if there is enough response, 
somebody implements it. If only one person wants something, she/he should 
implement it itself. And most things mentions in the context "Mosfet" ;-) are 
discussions, and there is a result. You're deciding, but we can suggest! Here 
you get constructive criticism, your work is accepted and I think many people 
like it.

Ciao, Matthias

P.S. I like your work, too. And the HPL should find a CVS tag in the KDE HEAD 
;-)

-- 

Go Open Source and build software that doesn't crash even when it's hit
       by an U.S. Navy submarine piloted by rich civilians.

>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

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