Re: [gnokii-users] Re: CVS update

[Markus Plail]

Hi Marcin!

* Marcin Wiacek writes:
> Hi,
>> Plain simple: Lack of programmers who contribute to the project. Bozo
> So, why don't want to extend list of developers?

What would you call giving Bozo and me CVS write acces? I call it
extending list of developers. If you are talking about yourself, say it
that way!

>> did quite some work on the 6110 code which is almost finished in
>> quite a short time. I will fine tune the current 6210 code, try to
>> make 6510 workable and add the not yet implemented functionality to
>> 6210 (mainly WAP)
> For 61xx majority (I agree), many important (datacalls) still not
> work.  For 3xxx many things todo. Still long way. Also ringtones,
> bitmaps and other things - long way.

Yes of course, but that's no argument against gnokii development.

>> Yes, you obviously had some people writing code for yourgnokii, or
>> wrote it yourself. Why should that make my arguments invalid?
> Because there are available human resources. Just take them and want
> to take them. That's why argument about lack of programmers is
> invalid.

No it isn't. I don't know, who wrote all that stuff in mygnokii. If it
was you, the reason was that it seems, that you and Pawel can't work
together.. at least not directly.

>> > How do you explain dropping my patch3?
>> You don't write patches Pawel can accept.
> Paweł, Paweł. I don't ask about Paweł now. Think your-self. What was
> wrong ? If you haven't checked it, shouldn't answer about it.

You asked me and I answered. Simple.
I don't have the knowledge to comment on your patch.
Pawel is the maintainer!
I can judge for myself whether to anser or not!

>> That's the work of a maintainer, especially when he know that
>> there is a big chance that he won't like some of the changes. 
>> And after all the patch isn't dropped, but Bozo is working on 
>> it extracting the useful parts of it.
> So, there is lack of programmers & additionaly some them have to spend
> their time on extracting source, where 4 of 8 parts (in this example)
> are accepted without ANY problems (for next 2 are proposed better
> solutions - mine were correct, but not excellent; for 2 we will
> discuss)...

I am quite sure I didn't get your point here but:
The reason why Bozo has to work on the patch is that your patches aren't
perfect, as you state yourself. So it seems you rushed the whole thing
wanting to change "everything" at once.

> First, second, third, fourth patch accepted. Why do not extend list of
> developers? When I will make something wrong, there is CVS and it's
> possible to return to earlier version.

So finally you say - partly - what you want. Don't blame Pawel for not
extending the developer list, if you really mean that he didn't get you
into it.

> Ow, I forgot, Paweł doesn't like me. That's very important reason.

Well.. partly this is correct. But it is not mainly that he doesn't like
you, but that he doesn't like your patches and the way you do things. I
am quite sure he is afraid that you mess up CVS - rushing into things.

>> What has sniffing to do with gnokii? Nothing. I never did it, and
>> neither Pawel so I asked you for information on how to do it. I
>> didn't use mygnokii at all so far.
> He,he,he....So, where is moved all this stuff from ? ;-)))

What do you mean all this stuff? I was talking about sniffing. I used
the program you also include (partly) in mygnokii. I downloaded it from
the web and used existing 7110 code as a base. This code may basically
base on mygnokii code (which I coded partly), but it has nothing todo
with sniffing.

>> Well, it is quite obvious that Pawel and you don't agree on many
>> questions and well.. that's just quite normal. Bozo and Pawel also
>> didn't agree in soime points, they discussed it and came to a good
>> solution.
> Sure. But two people can discuss, when they know, what to discuss
> about... See my next answer about gsm-sms.c. How can I discuss about
> it, if Paweł doesn't use MSVC6 ?

Bozo takes care of your patch and he is the one to talk about.

>> And I don't really think that moving stuff from gsm-sms.c to
>> gsm-encoding is a matter of compatibility.  To me it seems that you
>> want to change gnokii to be almost like mygnokii and that you cover
>> some changes stating that it is necessary for compatibility.
> Well, I want to have mygnokii functionality. But I'm not fanatic and I
> still try to find also better solutions than in mygnokii.

That's what "we" try to do, too.

> Not I, but some of you mixed "include" and that's why it's required to
> be moved (in this moment I think, it could be made, that gsm-data.h
> uses gsm-sms.h and gsm-sms.c uses gsm-data.h; but I can't check,
> because everything in gsm-sms.c is mixed - all stuff: ringtones,
> bitmaps, etc., etc.).

It may be required to change some includes, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that we have to do what you want to do in terms of splitting
gsm-sms.c.

> But gnokii developers not believe into it, because they think, their
> source is the best (like Paweł doesn't want to separate
> gsm-sms.c)...But it's not. There should be someone, who use both
> (Linux, WIn32) OS, inside team.

Once again. You want to be in the team.
Pawel is at the moment thinking about a way to improve gsm-sms.c. Mainly
because SMS support for 6510 is more complicated. He also can noe
concentrate on this because he *extended developer list*

> You don't want, I will not ask for it. Now I'm waiting (few days) for
> answer from Hugh. If he will ignore, I will probably unsubscribe gnokii
> list.

Erm... what do I not want?

> PS. Maybe it's this way: I'm "wrong" guy, who think only, how to
> destroy excellent source ? ;-)))))))) and doesn't have anything better
> to do than moving excellent source from one file to another ? ;-))))))
> Does it look this way? Really?

If I really understood what you were sainf then I could probably answer.

>> You want to change many things and you want to change them at
>> once. If
> Hmmm, is writing next version of software over 2 years and still
> having long way to end it good? There is way to change it...

It was some bad coincidence that development was almost stalled at some
point. Now it is going on like it should and development is
faster. Everyone can see that.. apart from you as it seems.

>> you did more atomic steps and gave good reason why you want to change
>> it, your patches would be accepted, believe me.
> If developers list would be extended or something like that, you would
> have 0.4.0 this year. If each easy patch will be applied over weeks,
> not. Believe me.

It's not 'each easy patch', it's your patches. And instead of only
accusing Pawel for being a bad maintainer, you should perhaps also think
if there *may* be another reason. 
And once again: Write "I want to to be developer!" because that's what
you mean.

Regards
Markus