[Sugar-devel] TamTamMini

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Flavio,

Ok, is not a patch, is a entire repository.

Sadly, for me is impossible get from there what are the changes needed to
make TamTam work
in every hardware, or what changes are useful upstream.

Is bad, because you worked a lot, and that is the only I wanted to say.

Is nothing personal, just check how small are the patches I have sent this
week,
and how were reviewed in github.

Gonzalo


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Flavio Danesse <
fdanesse at activitycentral.com> wrote:

> 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/20131119/b6cc1925/attachment.html>