Time for a break...

[John Bailey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin M Stange wrote:
> Ethan Blanton wrote:
<snip>
>> The argument yesterday was about the removal of win32 support in
>> Pidgin.  I fully support it, and I think we should do it.  I don't
>> think it buys us anything as a project, and it is certainly a support
>> nightmare.  With the complete core/ui split in 2.0.0, there is no
>> reason that some enterprising party cannot come along and develop a
>> native win32 client.
> 
> I recognize that removing win32 would certainly encourage new
> development of a native client, but I don't think it's a good idea to
> drop our builds before this happens, as the outrage it will generate
> will be terrible.  Not to mention that someone is going to still need to
> keep libpurple compatible with Win32 (perhaps the patchset could be kept
> out of tree, but I don't think it should).  There isn't an overabundance
> of hackiness in the Pidgin UI for Win32, in my opinion, and I don't
> think its maintainability is unreasonable.  It turns out GTK+ is our
> biggest problem on Win32, and eventually getting Win32 away from GTK+ is
> wise, but at the same time, Tor Lillvqist is working on Evolution for
> Windows (for Novell?), and GTK+ has been steadily improving on the
> platform as a result.

For what little it's worth I agree with Kevin completely here.

> I hate to see anyone leave over these types of debates.  It is not an
> unreasonable discussion to suggest that Win32 is not a worthwhile
> platform to support, I suppose.  I firmly believe that it is a platform
> we should support, at least until a native Win32 client appears which is
> *mature* enough to provide full functionality.

I've said this numerous times in the past, but I'll repeat it here for the sake
of completeness.  I would love to be able to create a native win32 client simply
to rid ourselves of the complaints we receive about GTK+ on Windows.
Unfortunately, I don't have the skills required to do so and would need to
assemble a team of developers capable of doing so.  In such an environment I
would attempt to fill a role similar to that which Luke assumes for Pidgin,
libpurple, and Finch.  As I know of no one capable of providing such development
skills, this project has been dead in the water since its inception during the
debates leading up to the tree restructure.

I will note that I'm sure I could find developers capable of working with the
.NET framework; this is not what I would want to see.  I want a UI that would
work on as many win32 platforms as possible, preferably written in MFC or
whatever else is available across all these versions of Windows.

Much of the problem with finding a development team is that there are far more
people who want to test than there are who want or are able to develop.

> I like Pidgin's developer team, and I agree and disagree with various
> members all the time.  I don't want to see people leaving in disgust or
> anger.  I don't know how to solve the flaring of tempers between members
> of opposing viewpoints, but I hope there's a solution that doesn't force
> anyone to have to go away.
> 
> Kevin

I agree that there should be a solution where no one has to leave, however I
find myself agreeing with some of Gary's sentiments.  I'm sure that won't gain
me any fans, but I'm not here to win popularity contests.

My feeling on the matter is that if Gary finds that it is too difficult to
implement his forward-thinking ideas or finds too much resistance when trying to
do things properly instead of half-assed, he should probably step back from
Pidgin and focus on his other projects.  If he wanted to, I'd even support him
in abandoning his Pidgin and purple-related plugins.

I also feel that the same is true for anyone who feels he has insufficient time
and needs to consistently make time for this project when that time would be
better spent elsewhere.  If this is the case, perhaps being a regular member of
the development team is a waste of your time and you should step back.

Note that I am not encouraging (or at least not attempting to) such behavior but
would support any of the current developers in a decision to step back if he
felt it was the best thing for him to do.

John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGUdrGBWJH/emdNtsRAkO0AJ0ebzb+67PcCSZ0tSbCFQ2wLeBSTQCfcgBs
j5rs8V3Ypegqa6HqQJPK69Q=
=9tOU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----