Re: Re: [Opie-cvs] opie/library locationcombo.cpp, 1.1 locationcombo.h, 1.1 global.cpp, 1.29 global.h, 1.4 library.pro, 1.37 qlibrary_unix.cpp, 1.8 timestring.cpp, 1.8 timestring.h, 1.6

Hi guys, see my comments in the message body.

Dmitriy



Lorn Potter wrote:

> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>
>> Thanks for adding camera2, but I'm _very_ uneasy about that part of the
>> commit.
>>
>> 1.) the commit message makes no sense, this is /library, what has it to
>> do with video4linux?
>> 2.) you just toss random stuff into _the_ core library of Opie without
>> giving us a chance to review.
>
>
> not at all random, but trying to get libqpe up to date and more 
> compatible with Qtopia.
>
>> 3.) you change the API and ABI of a stable library without giving us a
>> chance to review.
>>
>> Opie development may be effectively dead,
>
>
> Then why does it matter to you and why bring this up, if you or 
> everyone else is not interested in developing Opie?
> I am, and I am going to proceed with changes I see fit, otherwise I 
> will simply start my own project, and make changes there as I see fit.
>
> You don't have to agree with my changes, I certainly do not agree with 
> all the changes everyone has made, but I did not cause a stink because 
> whoever developer wanted them in.
>
>
I don't agree that that the OPIE development is dead. Otherwise we all 
should switch to GPE.
But the question is if you Lorn is a core developer, if he is 
responsible for his commits that they don't break the code stability (I 
mean not the quality and stability of the code you can write but the 
whole architecture you can follow). If yes, then everything is ok. If 
no, why do you have an access to the core code.
I don't agree with you that it's possible to work on the project if some 
of us will disagree with the changes of each other. If we would like to 
make a really working system we need to help each other -- not to 
conflict each other.

>  but we have to defend the
>
>> quality of a stable tree, so I would recommend reverting these changes
>> until we can get over them one by one.
>>
>
> When have I ever been included with any review of any changes? or for 
> that matter, when has there ever been ANY discussions/review, except 
> maybe perhaps in #opie.de.
>
> When has HEAD _ever_ been known as the stable tree on any project?
>
>
Sorry, in our case we MUST care about the _HEAD_ of the tree stbility. 
Look, we don't have a testing lab with 1024 guys running test 24 hours a 
day. Our typical tester is an "ordinary user" who decided to "check what 
is this Linux on PDA thing is". If this guy sees that this Linux crashes 
often, he'll say: "Oh, this Linux thing is just a toy for babies, 
nothing more" (this "toy for babies" I've really read in one of the 
local Linux discussion groups and had to spend some efforts to prove to 
the rest that familiar Linux is quite stable to try).
Next, I was a man spending my time trying (YES, still trying, you know) 
to make all this blue tooth stuff work together. It's still not a 
beautifull system, there are some big pieces of code that do the same 
work or do nothing, but in the beginning there were many pieces that 
didn't even work together!

Resume. Guys, as I called you for in my previous posts, let's cooperate 
in our work and try to discuss the changes we are going to make, let's 
discuss what we can do BEFORE we do this. We are all good programmers, 
so let's make a good code rather then wasting our time trying to show 
the rest of the world, who is the coolest, the first is much more 
interesting.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/DeveloperWikiIndex
>
> Opie-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/opie-devel
>
_______________________________________________

http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/DeveloperWikiIndex

Opie-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/opie-devel