dmitry at baikal.ru
Sat Sep 23 01:36:10 CDT 2006
"Jim White" <jim at pagesmiths.com> wrote:
>> Your "efforts" don't add value to it either. All you trying to do, is
>> create another poor quality software that whole world just can't get rid of.
>> If you so much like to have bad quality patches, why don't you start
>> your own repository, and grant "patch acceptance prise" to any developer
>> that sends you one.
>> Then look back (after even few weeks) and see where you are comparing to
>> where Wine is. Then we can continue the conversation.
> That's called a straw man argument. He didn't say accept patches
We must be reading/understanding that differently. Please reread Mike's
answer to Robert's e-mail.
> The whole "quality" and "hack" language is a red herring. To see that
> it is selective and subjective, just look at the code, try xrender.c for
And what's the problem with xrender.c in your opinion? Where are your patches
for that problems if any?
> Steven cited the business at Wineconf of Alexandre never being "proved
> wrong on a technical matter". Another straw man. The part of
> Alexandre's patch process that is the root of this conflict between Wine
> development-focused developers vs. Wine user-focused developers is that
> which consists of style and aesthetic considerations.
No, that's clearly a technical matter, and has nothing to do with user's
expectations. There is no such a thing as a "wine user-focused developer", but
there is such a thing as commercial software development. Feel the difference.
> CodeWeavers Wine version is full of patches that Alexandre won't accept
> for WineHQ. Obvious proof that the Alexandre's policy isn't the only
> way to make a Wine that people value. In fact it proves that the
> WineHQ's patch process is not good enough to make Wine that people will
> pay for, while CodeWeavers' is.
I'm just curious, did you send a single patch to wine-patches, or all this
word-playing has nothing to do with technical side of the process?
More information about the wine-devel