Thoughts on QQ Situation
mark at kingant.net
Wed May 21 04:11:13 EDT 2008
I'm in favor of giving the author of those patches commit access.
They seem to be more familiar with the QQ protocol plugin than we are. And
WE'RE certainly not working on it.
The language barrier might make this situation more difficult. I'm sending
this email to three email addresses that I obtained from the openq Google
Group. I don't know if these email addresses are for one person or two
people or three people.
Dear openq developers, would you like commit access to the Pidgin source code
repository? We use the Monotone revision control system. Are you familiar
with how to use Monotone?
If we give you commit access, you would be welcome to commit all bug fixes and
patches and changes to the qq protocol code in the directory
libpurple/protocols/qq/. If you want to make changes to other code in
libpurple or Pidgin we would ask that you please propose the changes on this
mailing list or by filing a ticket at http://developer.pidgin.im/
Please let us know how you feel. Thank you,
P.S. If anyone is fluently bilingual and wants to translate this for the
benefit of the QQ patch writers, feel free to do so.
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:28:18 +0800, ccpaging at foxmail.com wrote
> I am one of the member of the pidgin qq plugin in
> In fact, we have 5 patches now, and the 05-patch-reconnect should
> release at this weekend.
> After 05-patch-reconnect, we have forward qq plugin to:
> 1. Test ok on qq 2005 protocol
> 2. Rewrite the network layer based on simple and yahoo plugin of
> 3. Test ok on tcp connect, and tcp connect over http/socks4/socks5
> 4. Test ok on udp connect
> 5. Test ok on arm-based embed device(pdaxrom for sharp zaurus, maemo
> for nokia), Freebsd on Mac book, ubuntu, arch linux
> Since 06-patch-login, qq plugin will forword to qq 2006 protocol
> according to eva and lumaqq.
> We are likely to maintain qq plugin if you want.
> 发件人： Daniel Atallah
> 发送时间： 2008-05-21 09:26:24
> 收件人： devel
> 主题： Thoughts on QQ Situation
> It's pretty clear that at this point the QQ prpl is unmaintained.
> Based on some bug reports and people in #pidgin, my impression is
it doesn't work reliably.
There are 4 QQ patches in the
> tracker, 2 of them are quite large. 3 of
them are from the same
It doesn't look like these are likely to get evaluated any
> time soon
simply because nobody is capable of doing it. I don't
> think that is
fair to the developer who has clearly put forward a
> lot effort on
I see 3 options:
1 - Find a new
> maintainer. With the size of the apparent QQ
> there is someone capable
plugin.and interested in stepping forward.
> Perhaps the author of the
significant patches in the tracker is
2 - Do nothing. Patches will continue sit in tracker,
> bugs reports
will continue to come in.
3 - Remove the QQ prpl
> from the tree. Perhaps someone will pick it
up and maintain it as
> a 3rd party
What are your thoughts?
My current opinion is that the
> options are listed in order of
preference, with the caveat that 2
> and 3 are going to eventually
Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
More information about the Devel