On 05/11/2013 21:57, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 at 20:41:40 +0100, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote: >> Hi, >> >> You are doing a very good job with window maker. Testing patches, trying >> new things and of course, the git management. Is a hard work and you are >> always ready to do it. I only can say, thanks a lot. >> >> However, I cannot understand your logic about don't include some patches >> and the way to do it. Yesterday, some developers said that they agree >> with the patches about WINGs theming, but you didn't include the >> patches. You didn't explain why, you have your own idea about it (not >> include them) and for you the topic is closed. > > It's been only a day or two since the patch and I'm still thinking and > hoping to read more convincing arguments. It would help if the patch > included an entry in the NEWS file to teach people about it (including > the color syntax). Otherwise I think only a handful of people will be > aware of it (nevermind use it).
Some patches were accepted and the NEWS file was updated later. > I don't like the patch because it smells like "let's do it simply because "I don't like" -> 1 person. "I like" -> 3 people. Outcome: The patch is not accepted (yet, sorry) > we can, because it is cool to be able to change how the widgets look after > all these years". I understand the reasons why someone thinks it is cool, > but that is not a strong argument to include features (just think > about what would happen otherwise). > > It is just me being conservative and trying to tell people what I think > comes close to the edge of acceptance. Who set the edge? Can more people change the edge? >> We have other similar cases, like for example patches about window maker >> replaces other window managers and others replace window maker [1]. >> >> I feel uncomfortable with these situations. > > This is not too fair because it is biased, only the non-accepted > patches are remembered and quoted. No, as I said, you made/make a lot of good work. I am talking about the decisionmaking. I don't like some patches were included, for example, because they don't have a right code style, but the patches were accepted. Yes, usually, you are the only person that checks the patches. > And in this particular case you mention I said the patch would be > accepted if it was not compiled by default. I know what you said. But, why (only) you can say what is accepted or not? Could you accept a patch in the git that you don't agree with? http://lists.windowmaker.org/dev/msg05335.html OTOH "DEBUG option"? IMO is not a debug option, is a feature. > I try to be reasonable in my decisions, but I prefer to err on the > conservative rather than the "accept all patches" side. Yes, but there are more people in the mail list. Probably they can help with the decisionmaking. >> I think more people could upload changes to the git, the git upload >> could be done using votes, more people review the patches,... be more >> open. I said this idea more times. But I had the same result. >> I don't want start a war. I don't want create a wmaker forks here and >> there and I cannot offer anything. But I like the democratic projects. >> >> Regards, >> kix. >> >> [1] http://lists.windowmaker.org/dev/msg05199.html -- ||// //\\// Rodolfo "kix" Garcia ||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/ -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
