[Compcomm] A possible forum merge proposal

[Guillaume Seguin]

2007/4/26, Mike Dransfield <mike at blueroot.co.uk>:
> Danny Baumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all: Mike, I know you are aware of the differences of Compiz
> > and Compiz community, and I also know that you are aware of the fact
> > that this whole merge discussion is not about Compiz core.
> >
>
> I think this is some sort of false distinction and confusion to
> try to sell the composited community idea.
>
> The post was about depreciating the compiz forums in favour
> of some new forums for the new software.
>
> The whole idea that most of the compiz forum no longer applies
> to the new software is a joke.
>

Old problems and support posts definitely do not apply. Bugs get fixed...

> >
> >>> Plugins are, libbs is being heavily worked on... It's not because you
> >>> aren't doing anything in that sense that noone is working.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> libbs and bcop seem to have some useful features which David
> >> is taking on board.  I do not think he is prepared to accept libbs
> >> or bcop and he is implementing the features independently.
> >>
> >
> > Libbs and BCOP obviously won't be included into Compiz core - but they
> > are prepared for usage with Compiz. From my understanding, that's what
> > all this stuff is about.
> >
>
> As I said before you are only interested in the headline
> features.
>
> I do not really see the benefits of libbs or bcop and any benefits
> there are seem to be getting into compiz in another way.
>
> I really believe that those 2 pieces of software will become legacy
> very quickly.  Not flaming, just my observations so far.

You are free to use them or not.

>
> >
> >> The two people who seem to be working on the merge are David
> >> and onestone, but like I said, not a lot is getting through to the
> >> core.
> >>
> >
> > This is supposed to be that way. The only remaining "big parts" are
> > BTF/FTB drawing (for 3D and transparent cube), cube and rotate plugins
> > (and perhaps some features from scale). You might have noticed that e.g.
> > resize is close to be done.
> >
>
> Again, just the big parts

All parts, definitely.

>
> >
> >> My answer to 'lets create a new forum for the new software
> >> and make all posts read-only because nothing applies to the
> >> new software' is there is no sign that the code merge will happen
> >> any day soon.  Especially once you consider the minor fixes and
> >> features and fixes.  Everyone seems to be only concerned with
> >> the plugins, libbs and then creating a new forum.
> >>
> >
> > What is the code which is not merged that you are talking about? I don't
> > see any big things pending except the three I mentioned above. Code
> > merge !== Compiz core changes, you know that as well as I do. Maybe the
> > term "merge" isn't exactly the best wording, but I'm pretty sure you
> > already got the idea.
> >
>
> There were > 1500 commits to the beryl svn and hundreds
> in cvs, and an unknown amount on quinns harddrive.
>
> Who has gone through all of them and verified and submitted
> them to the compiz ML?
>
> They will mostly be lost and they will relate to edge cases so
> will be hard to detect.
>

You know that this statement is *censored, because I'll quickly be
shown as insulting otherwise*, all that has to be taken into account
is what the latest beryl was, not what it was 5 months or 1 year
ago... And they won't be lost anyway, what do you think all those
repos in inactive/ are?

> >
> >> What about the actual reality of what this forum will be
> >> supporting?  Will it be another compiz-quinn 'branch'?
> >>
> >
> > Hmm? What should be branched and why?
> >
>
> Who knows?  Dennis seems to disagree with Davids decision
> to require FBO's so unless that can be resolved there will be
> some sort of lesser-hardware branch.
>
> Non-FBO owners will already have noticed the loss of blurring
> under windows.  What will happen there?
>

They'll cry and you'll blame us for not porting it.