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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Bugs against the Essen branch
From:       "Adam C." <nospam () xibo ! at>
Date:       2010-09-23 20:31:00
Message-ID: op.vjh5xyrh2qq4ze () damdam-laptop
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:58:24 +0200, Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> wrote:
> ..
> Starting a koffice feature branch at the moment the schedule says "lets  
> focus on
> fixing bugs" is a signal that people rather work on features than on  
> fixing bugs.
> To add to the foundation of that signal is that this is the second  
> release that
> this happens.
We are not a software company, we are free in what we do. If I'm tired of  
fixing bugs, then i have the right of developing something new. If there  
wouldn't be a branch, i would keep my patches around locally. that could  
mean, that they get lost during a hardware crash or a burglary (this  
things happen where i live).

If boud knows, that the 2.2 release wouldn't be the end user ready one,  
then it's certainly better, if lukas is working in the branch and not  
loosing his sponsored time by fixing bugs in brushes, that will be  
refactored later anyway.

> Is it wrong? Its about as wrong as you not volunteering your seat to an  
> elderly
> lady in a full buss.
just because it doesn't fit in your current concept or vision for koffice,  
or parts of it, it doesn't mean it's wrong. imo you are concluding very  
often from you on others. this is working sometimes, but very often it  
doesn't.

>> Seriously, the change has follow one of our usual path, it has been  
>> posted
>> for  review on this list, and Thomas woke up a month later when  
>> Boudewijn
>> added some documentation to it. In other word, the patch has followed an
>> establish KDE and KOffice process, in other word, no rule has been bend
>> for that patch !
>
> I was a participant in this topic and you name me directly so I'll add  
> that I
> found no reason to go into the history too deeply; its more productive  
> to avoid
> a pissing match.
Maybe it's just my interpretation, but you started a pissing match  
earlier. my perception is, that you are intervening quite often in other  
people's business, because their solution is not ideal. ok, maybe their  
solution is not ideal, but that's life. life is not always ideal, but it's  
working anyway.

> I just want to state that your opinion of it does not depict
> the history as it unfolded. But more importantly; it is not about two  
> people or
> their communication. So I'll let it go.
> Pierre wrote a great comment on that thread;
>    «However, let's take a complete outsider company, who would want to  
> develop
>   an application (closed source at least temporary) based on our libs.  
> If they
>   would come asking (with a patch) to change our core API, we probably  
> would
>   ask them for some example usecases. »
> We would have, so why haven't we?
That was indeed an mistake. you should have asked for a usecase and some  
examples during the review. afaik boud has already admitted, that there  
should be examples and promised to deliver some.

>
> Did rules get broken? Did someone do something wrong? Its about as wrong  
> as you
> coming home at midnight and seeing a broken window and lights inside at  
> your
> neighbor and ignoring it.
this comparison is ridiculous..
nokia and its contractors are members of the community with the same  
privileges and duties as you.

piere has communicated, that he is feeling currently uneasy. that is ok  
and nokia will have to work on that.

adam.



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
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]