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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Multiple tool dockers
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-07-06 9:19:47
Message-ID: 200807061119.50979.zander () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Friday 4. July 2008 23:05:45 C. Boemann wrote:
> > More to the point is that there seems to be no valid usecase for your new
> > feature. The one usage you have is a design that everyone here disagreed
> > is a path we should take[1].
>
> Again you are completely off topic

Casper, I was under the impression everyone agreed we should focus on making 
the 2.0 release soon.  Which means only featres that are actually useful for 
2.0 should be going into main and we even have a soft freeze soon so only 
features (for 2.0) you are actually *working*on* get in.
Now, this makes the request for a usecase on-topic.  Especially since the code 
you committed is buggy, I noticed several bugs while reading it and if you 
use krita with your patch you will notice the tool-info docker is always 
empty if its floating.

> I can't help feeling this is about you wanting to get your way with
> everything around KOffice. And if it doesn't play to your tune then you
> keep writing mail after mail until we are so fed up with it that we just
> give up. 

Hehehe, nice try.  Clapping in your hands to distract from the actual action. 
Nice that you managed to put several personal insults in there too.  Bonus 
points! ;)

Fact of the matter is that I've been trying to ask you several questions about 
this new feature and you have been avoiding answering.  It could have been a 
3 email 'thread', really.
On top of that, *if* you actually gave me a chance you'd see that really, your 
remarks are soo last years ;)

The bottom line is that your code has bugs and needs to be maintained.  When I 
look at various other projects you did in koffice-libs I notice a lack of 
unittests, little to no api docs, I am left with the question who will update 
the techbase tutorials and if someone has an issue with the code or the 
looks, actual answers and no personal accusations would be nice too. ;)

Now, to be clear, I appreciate that you work on needed projects, and I don't 
really care that much that there are no api docs etc.  I value the code.  As 
long as we are able to clearly communicate.

Its not about your vs my opinion, its about the whole package we call 
maintenace of the software you write.  And as one of the people that 
maintains code in libs, I'd be happier if I understand what its going to be 
used by....
What about you tell me what your new feature is meant to do, is it for 2.0, is 
it for any specific tools?
Does that sound so harsh?

If I tell you the problems I found in the code review, would you get upset?


Hope you are having a good weekend!


ps. if you found some other communications medium outside of this mailinglist 
or our #koffice irc channel where you discussed this with the rest of the 
devs (as you wrote in several mails), then maybe those that are involved 
there should read the mail archives of this list from the last months and ask 
again; why...
-- 
Thomas Zander

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


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