[Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)

[Mike Dransfield]

Danny Baumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   
>>> Other compositing managers were only a small part of what I was saying. 
>>> What about Compiz plugins, Compiz settings managers, Compiz window 
>>> decorators, and other bits that aren't good enough or otherwise don't 
>>> deserve to be in the official Compiz distribution(s)? Compiz-Core 
>>> developers have expressed frequent concerns about the quality of the 
>>> design that comes before the code--something that they contend most 
>>> plugins/decorators/extensions lack. It seems like a very exclusive and 
>>> closed environment to me. I prefer something more inclusive and open.
>>>       
>
> I disagree with that one. At the beginning, it was a pretty closed
> environment, but that situation has improved significantly over that
> past months.
>   

I still see this being put up as some sort of reason as to
why there should not be a reunition.

http://www.opencompositing.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=559&p=5437#p5421

>   
>> You said David was not open to the community.  He worked hard
>> to fix that.  Even now he says how he must spend more time
>> helping plugin developers.  This was not good enough.
>>     
>
> It was good enough at least for all Compiz plugin/extension developers I am aware of.
>
>   
>> You said, David will not accept our changes.  He worked hard
>> with you to make those patches acceptable to EVERYBODY.
>> That was not good enough.
>>     
>
> It was good enough at least for all Compiz plugin/extension developers I
> am aware of.
>
>   
>> You wanted to have a git repo, so David took time out to fix that.
>> This was not good enough.
>>     
>
> For the obvious reasons (no git+ssh support, no proper working
> gitweb)...BTW, it seems that it also wasn't good enough for you, or why
> do you host your plugins at fd.o? I would also host it there if I
> wouldn't host the on opencompositing.org, but I'm also not complaining
> about people not using git.compiz.org.
>   

I do not really see why it wasn't agreed with David to use
195.114.19.35 as git.compiz.org, instead you all insisted
on starting a new project and making his effort wasted.

In the end fdo was easier for me because David needed to
set up stubs and things were changing so rapidly it was
just a joke.

Also remember people were accusing me of shitting on
developers and how I was not open etc etc?  Any public git
repo seemed acceptable at the time.

>   
>> You said Compiz has no settings manager.  We worked VERY
>> hard to make this possible, many different settings managers
>> exist for Compiz.  This was not good enough.
>>     
>
> Which one of them is still actively developed and maintained? Is there a
> SINGLE one?
>   

Yep - My web based one still works and is maintained. 

I did some work on it recently, but I don't have a lot of time
for it.  The idea was that its just a framework and html and
design gurus could extend it.  I have recently added a small
gui so that people do not need to display it in a browser.

>   
>> You wanted total freedom over the plugins.  David handed them
>> on a plate and said 'go for it'.  That was not good enough.
>>     
>
> Can you explain that a bit more?
>   

The non essential plugins were originally planned to
move from fdo to compiz.org so that more people can
have access to them.

I dont think there is any change to that plan.

>> You said 'compiz relies on gconf - we hate gconf', I wrote the ini
>> plugin.  That was not good enough.
>>     
>
> It's (after Patrick's patches that fixed a ton of mem leaks) good enough
> to replace the gconf plugin. Who said it's not good enough?
>   

LOL - Yes thanks again for the patches :D

By writing the ccp (or whatever it is these days) you are saying
that these two plugins are not good enough.  The  libcccs even
has files named ini.c and gconf.c !  These surely are direct
replacements which is implying the originals are not worth
fixing?

>   
>> You wanted access to the core so you didn't have to send
>> patches over the mailing list.  David handed out FDO accounts
>> like sweets.  That was not good enough.
>>     
>
> Who said that? Besides that, you're implying that people aren't worth
> the FDO accounts they got. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
>
>   

I think we have been through this... All I am saying is
he went out of his way to make people feel welcome and
to give them more control.

Having said that, I think there might be people who have
fdo accounts but rarely use them.  Those peopl probably
don't NEED them, its not a case of not being worthy of them.

>> You want to be able to create your own sub projects and set
>> your own goals.  We (finally) managed to come to some agreement
>> on that, the details are not totally worked out, but I don't think
>> there is anything that is unobtainable.  This is STILL not good
>> enough.
>>     
>
> Who said that?
>   

Refer to previous link, plus recent very negative emails
on this list which just point to problems without offering
any solutions.
>   
>> I think we have tried and tried to accommodate your wishes
>> without stomping on others, what more do we have to do?
>>     
>
> Stop misunderstanding and 'over-interpreting' people? 'We' === you in
> that case.
>   

If you all stopped hiding beind the clan then maybe
you will stand up and be counted for yourselves.

Until then, it will always be a them and us situation.

> Regards,
>
> Danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>