[Compcomm] My ideas (for the record)

[Danny Baumann]

Hi,

> > ACK in principle, but there's always the risk that we "discuss things to
> > death" (such as the project name...) and in the end nothing will be
> > done. I'm not saying that this will happen everytime something is
> > discussed, but we should not forget that risk.
> >   
> 
> We need to at least know what the issues are, coming up
> with nothing IMHO is better than coming up with 2 competing
> solutions that each dont really fill everyones needs.

Ok, that's something we disagree in then. I think it's better to come up
with a solution that fills the needs of the vast majority than with no
solution.

> > Hey hey hey, it was rewritten exactly 1 time - from libberylsettings to
> > libbs. The reset were just name changes.
> >   
> 
> Only if you include the library.
> 
> If you include the entire settings 'ecosystem' which includes
> the plugin, the library, the bindings and the gui then it has
> had many many lives over the last year.  I challenge anyone
> to list all the names of each settings gui since compiz-quinn.

Only the settings GUI was rewritten (too) many times, the rest was not.

> Most name changes went with a 'total rewrite' (although after
> hearing the zoom changes described as that, I'm not sure what
> it means anymore)

That's not true. The libbs -> libccs and libccs -> libcompizconfig
didn't affect the code at all besides some struct and function name
prefixes.

> >> could imagine that it is getting better and better (but I don't really
> >> know for sure due to the above reasons). Since Danny, Dennis and the
> >> other beryl-devs now work closer with David, there has been some effort
> >> to find well-designed alternatives to several rather "hackish"
> >> approaches.
> >>     
> >
> > Exactly, that was the main motivation behind rewriting it.
> >   
> 
> Isn't it better to design requirements before starting coding?
> 
> Rewriting anything is a very bad because it is admission that
> your original design was totally wrong and unworkable.  It also
> means that a lot of time is wasted.
> 
> For some reason you think something being 'completely rewritten'
> is a good thing.

That's not true. I didn't like needing to rewrite libberylsettings, but
it was needed due to some shortcomings and dependencies we didn't want
(glib). Unfortunately, libberylsettings was designed _before_ I and
Dennis got involved, so those people (we two) who rewrote libbs weren't
involved in the first design phase.

> Couldn't these should just go into a general improvements, or
> (dare I say it) an extras package?  I assume you are talking
> about packaging?
> 
> The development and announcements does not need a separate
> project because as you say its not really a niche, its just an
> enhancement (like scaleaddon).  There are a few plugins I have
> which would be good in that group.

Hmm, yes, might make sense.

> I think that grouping people based on what cult they belong to
> is very damaging and segregates things on grounds which
> make no sense to the average user.

ACK (besides of the wording :-P )

Regards,

Danny