Sorry to put me back, but to bring a little clarity on TamTam: Do not say that the patch is huge because I never send a patch for this just to avoid giving this discussion which does not yield as well.
If you look at my first mail on the subject I told him what I had done and posted where it was in case anyone wanted to look at, but never sent any patch. So, please do not complain about a patch that does not exist. I also said that because I never had previous patches approved on the same modifications to the application, which in each new version I had to return them. But anyway, my intention was to improve the application, not provoke discussions. I believe Nothing more TamTam theme, let the official repository as it is now and the end of the topic. 2013/11/18 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > David, > > if you want to make a fair comparison, you need to take in account what > was submitted! > > Try to submit six copies of the same codebase (instead of a patch) to any > other free software project on heart. I bet our reaction will compare > *very* favourably in friendliness. > > Seriously, stop thinking you are being treaten unfairly. You are not. > > We appreciate ActivityCentral effort to work upstream, just keep it up and > give us a chance. > > > > On 18 November 2013 23:07, David Farning <dfarn...@activitycentral.com>wrote: > >> Did anyone else notice a difference in how this Activity and Pippy were >> handled? >> >> With pippy the maintainers quickly responded with "Cool someone else >> wants to add value to the project. Here are my notes. Good luck." >> >> With TamTam the maintainer responded with "My way or the highway." >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Also note that we don't necessarily need to fix the code ourselves, good >> > profiling data is often acted on by lower level libraries maintainers. >> The >> > default strategy is to pretend it's higher level code fault of course, >> but >> > issues can't be denied or ignored when proven by numbers and test cases >> :P >> > >> > >> > On Monday, 18 November 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >> >> >> >> And we can tackle lower level stuff... It's free and open code too! :) >> >> >> >> On Monday, 18 November 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >> >>> >> >>> There are some ow level stuff, but we can solve some problems in the >> >>> activities too. >> >>> You can see the other thread I started about performance. >> >>> Also, dsd solved some of the problems related with the dynamic >> bindings. >> >>> >> >>> Gonzalo >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Sebastian Silva >> >>> <sebast...@fuentelibre.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> El 17/11/13 12:58, Gonzalo Odiard escribió: >> >>>> >> >>>> I hope we can solve the performance problems then you don't need use >> a >> >>>> old Sugar version, >> >>>> to avoid all these problems. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, I don't think it's likely you or me will be able to fix this >> one. >> >>>> It's lower level than Python >> >>>> and it looks to be by design of the lower level libraries. >> >>>> >> >>>> Note this mainly affects the XO1 which is already considered End Of >> >>>> Life. I think efforts are >> >>>> much more productive in trying to make the GNU+Sugar user experience >> >>>> excellent on >> >>>> Classmates and other netbooks. >> >>>> >> >>>> BTW, we are not the only ones affected. The entire LXDE desktop >> >>>> environment has decided >> >>>> to forego migrating to GTK3 and instead decided to port everything to >> >>>> QT. >> >>>> >> >>>> Here's a quote from the initial release of the QT file manager >> PCManFM >> >>>> [1]: >> >>>> "I, however, need to admit that working with Qt/C++ is much more >> >>>> pleasant and productive than messing with C/GObject/GTK+. >> >>>> Since GTK+ 3 breaks backward compatibility a lot and it becomes more >> >>>> memory hungry and slower, I don’t see much advantage of GTK+ now. >> GTK+ 2 is >> >>>> lighter, but it’s no longer true for GTK+ 3. Ironically, fixing all >> of the >> >>>> broken compatibility is even harder than porting to Qt in some cases >> >>>> (PCManFM IMO is one of them). >> >>>> So If someone is starting a whole new project and is thinking about >> what >> >>>> GUI toolkit to use, personally I might recommend Qt if you’re not >> targeting >> >>>> Gnome 3." >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Daniel Narvaez >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Narvaez >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Sugar-devel mailing list >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> David Farning >> Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com >> > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel