[Sugar-devel] TamTamMini

[Gonzalo Odiard]

David,

I can't understand you.
You talk a lot about how much you want participate, but then start
attacking me.

And now, you say: " Hmmm. Flavio and others have been trying to send
patches for years.
They have been ignored so they fork."

Look at the history of TamTam uploads:

http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addons/versions/4061

I have uploaded the last version, previously alsroot and dirakx,
(both employees of AC) were responsible of TamTam.
In fact, I collaborated with both in the past, without problem.

Then, do not try rewrite history, and don't try make me the bad maintainer,
who only want to do his way.

Gonzalo



On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM, David Farning <
dfarning at activitycentral.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > if you want to make a fair comparison, you need to take in account what
> was
> > submitted!
>
> Hmmm. Flavio and others have been trying to send patches for years.
> They have been ignored so they fork. At which point upstream complains
> about how destructive it is when down streams fork.
>
> He took a play out of Lionel's book and submitted a completed product
> to the list for review and analysis of what it takes to maintain a set
> of activities for a large deployment.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is about open source best practices. The goal is to highlight the
> difference a maintainer's attitude has on the tone of a discussion.
>
> > We appreciate ActivityCentral effort to work upstream, just keep it up
> and
> > give us a chance.
>
> Thank you. We will. In addition, I will continue to identify behaviors
> and practices which are detrimental to the project and the ecosystem.
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> David Farning
> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20131119/e840ff05/attachment-0001.html>