[Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)

[Danny Baumann]

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

But not put up by any of the former Beryl developers. This particular
one was put up by Alyssa, and I said before I disagree with it, and I
think this applies to all former Beryl developers.

> >> 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.

We use the server we use now because it _has_ a working gitweb and git
+ssh, not because we dislike git.compiz.org.

> 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.

Just a joke? Huh? What do you mean?

> 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.

It perfectly is acceptable. But if you accuse other people of not using
git.compiz.org, the question why you don't use it should be allowed.

> >> 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.

I must admit I didn't try it in the past weeks, but when I tried it, it
was pretty uncomfortable. That's clear because it's only a
proof-of-concept, but I wouldn't consider it a full settings manager for
everyday work. I will try your current state however.

> >> 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.

Ok, understood, but the usage of the past tense confused me a bit as
this step hasn't been taken yet.
> 
> >> 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 are over-interpreting again. Duplicating some functionality in the
ccs backends doesn't mean the original ones are broken, but just means
their don't fit in the CCS concept. I will make a post in the forums
explaining CCS, we can discuss that there.

> 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.

Ok, understand...yes, that's correct.

> >> 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.

Are those mails from you? :-P
Seriously, you really aren't one of the people who _always_ combines
complaints with offering solutions...you should allow other people to do
the same. I don't think that's good style, but that's life.
;-)

> 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.

Can you please rephrase that first sentence? Thanks.

Regards,

Danny