[Sugar-devel] TamTamMini

[Flavio Danesse]

Sorry to put me back, but to bring a little clarity on TamTam:

Do not say that the patch is huge because I never send a patch for this
just to avoid giving this discussion which does not yield as well.

If you look at my first mail on the subject I told him what I had done and
posted where it was in case anyone wanted to look at, but never sent any
patch. So, please do not complain about a patch that does not exist.

I also said that because I never had previous patches approved on the same
modifications to the application, which in each new version I had to return
them.

But anyway, my intention was to improve the application, not provoke
discussions.
I believe Nothing more TamTam theme, let the official repository as it is
now and the end of the topic.


2013/11/18 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>

> David,
>
> if you want to make a fair comparison, you need to take in account what
> was submitted!
>
> Try to submit six copies of the same codebase (instead of a patch) to any
> other free software project on heart. I bet our reaction will compare
> *very* favourably in friendliness.
>
> Seriously, stop thinking you are being treaten unfairly. You are not.
>
> We appreciate ActivityCentral effort to work upstream, just keep it up and
> give us a chance.
>
>
>
> On 18 November 2013 23:07, David Farning <dfarning at activitycentral.com>wrote:
>
>> Did anyone else notice a difference in how this Activity and Pippy were
>> handled?
>>
>> With pippy the maintainers quickly responded with "Cool someone else
>> wants to add value to the project. Here are my notes. Good luck."
>>
>> With TamTam the maintainer responded with "My way or the highway."
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Also note that we don't necessarily need to fix the code ourselves, good
>> > profiling data is often acted on by lower level libraries maintainers.
>> The
>> > default strategy is to pretend it's higher level code fault of course,
>> but
>> > issues can't be denied or ignored when proven by numbers and test cases
>> :P
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, 18 November 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And we can tackle lower level stuff... It's free and open code too! :)
>> >>
>> >> On Monday, 18 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> There are some ow level stuff, but we can solve some problems in the
>> >>> activities too.
>> >>> You can see the other thread I started about performance.
>> >>> Also, dsd solved some of the problems related with the dynamic
>> bindings.
>> >>>
>> >>> Gonzalo
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Sebastian Silva
>> >>> <sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> El 17/11/13 12:58, Gonzalo Odiard escribió:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I hope we can solve the performance problems then you don't need use
>> a
>> >>>> old Sugar version,
>> >>>> to avoid all these problems.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, I don't think it's likely you or me will be able to fix this
>> one.
>> >>>> It's lower level than Python
>> >>>> and it looks to be by design of the lower level libraries.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Note this mainly affects the XO1 which is already considered End Of
>> >>>> Life. I think efforts are
>> >>>> much more productive in trying to make the GNU+Sugar user experience
>> >>>> excellent on
>> >>>> Classmates and other netbooks.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> BTW, we are not the only ones affected. The entire LXDE desktop
>> >>>> environment has decided
>> >>>> to forego migrating to GTK3 and instead decided to port everything to
>> >>>> QT.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here's a quote from the initial release of the QT file manager
>> PCManFM
>> >>>> [1]:
>> >>>> "I, however, need to admit that working with Qt/C++ is much more
>> >>>> pleasant and productive than messing with C/GObject/GTK+.
>> >>>> Since GTK+ 3 breaks backward compatibility a lot and it becomes more
>> >>>> memory hungry and slower, I don’t see much advantage of GTK+ now.
>> GTK+ 2 is
>> >>>> lighter, but it’s no longer true for GTK+ 3. Ironically, fixing all
>> of the
>> >>>> broken compatibility is even harder than porting to Qt in some cases
>> >>>> (PCManFM IMO is one of them).
>> >>>> So If someone is starting a whole new project and is thinking about
>> what
>> >>>> GUI toolkit to use, personally I might recommend Qt if you’re not
>> targeting
>> >>>> Gnome 3."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daniel Narvaez
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Narvaez
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Farning
>> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131118/e497b96a/attachment-0001.html>