"Jim White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
willy-nilly.
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
example.
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?
--
Dmitry.
