Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: >> You still don't get it. All your arguments including this one and that >> in your other mail are based on the assumption that there were only >> two alternatives: full support or removal from trunk. Under this >> premise I agree completely with the removal, but that is not what has >> been requested. >> >> There was a third alternative that would have solved almost all >> problems: Keep it in trunk (with no obligation of anyone to touch it), >> and let those who care do the work to keep it up to date. With that >> alternative all your arguments are moot. > > No. Because even without obligation most people still would have tried to > to put stuff in both frontends - even if they had no real interest in > the qt3 frontend - just because they try to be nice.
Of course, because the person who did almost all of the interface changes (Abdel, I don't count the changes that were done by a script) complained every few days that he had to care for other frontends when he was still supposed to care, and he was really tired of caring. The most obvious reaction to declaring qt3 unsupported would of course have been "Oh nice, now that I don't have to care about this crap anymore that really annoyed me I will enjoy to do it voluntarily". Come on, this theory of eating resources is not impossible, but quite implausible. > And those resources would not have been available anymore for other > work. Do I really have to tell you that not wasted resources are not automatically available for something else? > 1.5 was the first release in a decade that had lots of new GUI stuff. > Releases form 0.10 on or so before 1.5 had much smaller GUI changes, > and that's not just changes for the sake of changes but as real > improvement. I am pretty sure some of this would not have happened if > multiple frontends had stayed around. Me too. Unfortunately you totally ignore the fact that none of the new stuff that happened after Denmark until 1.5.0 was supposed to happen, and the stuff that happened before happened _despite_ multiple frontends. >> That alternative would of course not have guaranteed that 1.5.0 would be >> released with qt3. Maybe it would indeed have been too much work to keep >> it up to date, and it would have been abandoned, but this would then have >> been the decision of _those who where doing the work_. > > You miss the point that we do not have unlimited resources. > > If qt3 lived on for a while and had been killed later even more > resources would have gone to the kitchen sink. And of course you are the one to decide who wastes his resources and for what, and other developers are not entitled to decide themselves whether they want to be "nice" and do silly stuff or not. If you are really serious with that: - Why did you not remove gtk at the same time as qt3? - Why did you not work towards one build system far earlier, and why did you create a fourth one? - Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense? The two versions are wasting far more resouces than qt3 could have ever wasted, because there is no date in sight for the merging, and because far more people are involved. >> What happened instead is that _you_ dictated that those should stop or >> jump through some extra hoops. > > And you haven't been in Greve to prevent it... Can you please stop repeating this again and again? You know why I have not been there (for those who don't know: I'd really liked to be there, but I had a very good reason not to go that has nothing to do with LyX or LyX developers). I have learned my lesson. If I will fix a bug in my branch I will no more bring it to lyx-devel, since it only results in frustration. And the rest of you should better get a consensus on the goals for 1.6 rather soon and then stick to that (even those who do not fully support each goal). Only as a true team you can create a great product. This involves from time to time doing stuff that you don't like, but that must be done. If everybody is working on his pet projects only then the whole product will fall apart sooner or later. My impression (which may be wrong, because I did only skim the list from time to time) is that exactly that happens and a common goal does not exist. Georg
