[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [gnokii-users] Re: CVS update
RE: [gnokii-users] Re: CVS update
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:27:37 +0200
(For Hugh: please read it everything)
> 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.
Yes. This is very visible, isn't 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!
> 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.
We again to return to point: should software grow very fast or should be
everything changed very slow ? When it's almost stable and ready, second
it's OK. If not, first (I remind: 2 years after first pre of 0.3.3 -
it's time to make it fast now).
> 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.
Paweł doesn't like my work and I don't like his work.
> > 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.
Hmmm, I can say the same: when compare 0.3.3 and 0.4.0, I see many
changes and many cleanups, which still waiting to be done. I didn't make
it ;-) Not everyone is excellent. I know. That's why we have also CVS.
> 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.
OK, maybe we will return in the future to it.
> Bozo takes care of your patch and he is the one to talk about.
> That's what "we" try to do, too.
So, join our work. Simple ?
If Hugh will make it wisly now (his answer, you probably read already),
it will be possible.
> 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.
> 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*
Hmmm, please answer on very simple question: is better more complicated
source or more simple ?
GSM-sms.c should be only for preparing sms contests as said in ETSI -
you give GSM_SMSMessage and receive some bytes coded according to ETSI.
There could be also some other helpful things.
But phone related stuff should be rather in phone module than in
gsm-sms.c. So, why does Paweł complicate things ? I studied ETSI and I
know also a little SMS. So, why does Paweł not take help ? It could be
possible to find better solution together.
But he "probably" doesn't want and will mix everything and make
everything more complicated.
This should be case for Hugh.
> > 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?
I though about access or something like that. You was in meaning "you,
> > 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.
In normal development it's incorrect. In not normal (two years from last
release) it can be available in some cases.
Especially, that gnokii developers put big parts of source (like you
6510) without anything. I can say: before putting it test it very good,
check, then put in CVS, when it will be sure, it's 100% OK.
But I don't have idea about 6510 and don't say anything.
The same it shouldn't be said, that moving some things from gsm-sms.c is
not necessary, when you don't use MSVC6. Or refusing patches, when don't
have idea about some things (like Paweł made somewhere in the past).
Also maybe these "many things at once" are only first required step to
make something correctly working ? How do you know it ?
Maybe I have 400 kB of source and I don't want to split in into 500
bytes parts, becuse I dont' have so much time, but I want to put into
gnokii in end time ? How do you know it ?
"You want to change many things and you want to change them at once" is
slogan and relative. OK ? ;-)))
> >> 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.
No, I see it too. But it can be faster than is now, you can avoid some
problems. Just be able to hear it, that there are ready solutions for
> It's not 'each easy patch', it's your patches.
I can say the same for patches from Gabriele Zappi and other people from
mygnokii, who first tried to make something for gnokii. These are old
times and you probably don't know about it.
> And instead of
> only accusing Pawel for being a bad maintainer, you should
> perhaps also think if there *may* be another reason.
Well, as I said: I saw my mistakes many times. But refusing something,
when anything better is available, is stupid for me. I will say it each
> And once again: Write "I want to to be developer!" because
> that's what you mean.
I have rule: I don't implore for something. But if Hugh thinks, it will
be good (partialy access or applying my source by some of you without
giving me access and checking it) and will ask me for it, I will not
Of course, it's possible, that Paweł and me won't like ourself, but
rule: "the highest voice in team should have person, who makes the
highest good effort", should resolve everything.
Marcin Wiacek (mailto:address@hidden,
mygnokii mirrors (http://www.mds.mdh.se/~cel95eig/mygnokii/,