Re: [bug #4658] Broken gpbs when doing pb operations between GS and X

[Kazunobu Kuriyama]

Stefan Urbanek wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> On 2003-08-10 19:24:12 +0200 Fred Kiefer <fredkiefer@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > would you mind to retest with the GNUstep CVS from yesterday. Right 
> > about the time when you were complaining about this problem I already 
> > did try to fix it. If it still doesn't work keep on complaining so 
> > that somebody has another go on it.
> thank you. with recent gnustep it seems to partially work (with that 
> default set to YES). only thing that does not work is copy and paste 
> non-latin1 (like latin2) text from GS to X and back. From GS to X 
> nothing happens (no paste), from X to GS latin1 characters are used. 

Then, what is you really want to do with gpbs?  In the bug report, you 
were talking about
some X apps that cannot do copy and paste of non-latin1 characters with 
gpbs. So I replied
to it with some detailed technical reasons.  Then you begun to claim 
that gpbs should be
fallen back to that of the previous versions, which means gpbs supports 
only latin1 characters.
Now you are talking about non-latin1 characters again.  Stop that game 
right now and
make your position clearer and more specific!

I spent much time for you to try to fix the problem; I downloaded the 
source code of both
Motif and nedit, read the source code, and installed them to see what 
happens with gpbs.
After that I wrote somewhat lengthy emails to reply to you. What do you 
expect me more?
I cannot share my time more with you.

The malfunction you pointed out above is due to the recent modification 
(not by me) in
the CVS. I'm fairly convinced the modification will soon result in 
another bug because of
its too naive way of modification (You just pointed out it!).  In one of 
my emails on the
issue, I pointed out gpbs need to be largely modified for everybody to 
be satified with it.
Moreover, (perhaps, on another email) I said I could make gpbs support 
COMPOUND_TEXT (which
I guess some of you want) and it would take a relatively long time to 
complete because it
requires an elaborated and extensive work. So I asked people on the 
mailing list whether or
not I need to do it. Some people explicitly said they don't need it, and 
then the patch was
adopted in GNUstep. You raised no objection agaist it during that 
period, didn't you?.

You completely ignore the right process taken for the adoption and claim 
something in an
illogical manner. Even so, I had faithfully tried replying to it with 
the detailed
reasons and offered a tentative way of fixing the problem, all of which 
I thought were
helpful for further discussion and for fixing the problem satisfactorily 
in cooperation
with someone else. However, you negated all such my efforts.

I have always been talking about technical issues, never about my 
tastes. Who said some
applications are wrong?  I'm not a person who shouts out, "It's broken 
because it doesn't
work for me!"  If you gave me some useful advice or comment on such 
technical issues in
a different way, I would willingly tinker at the code for the sake of 
you. While you
complain unilaterally and is reluctant to care about what I said, what 
could I do for you?
In addition, you pretended as if you were an end-user, coming up with a 
bug report of being
lack of information needed for her/him to receive an appropriate reply. 
So I was quite
surprised when I found you identified yourself as GNUstep developer 
somewhere. You've been
on the mailing list, haven't you?  You could have read what I wrote on 
emails and wrote
a bug report in a more cooperative manner.

I've never imposed anything on you; I always wrote my patches in such a 
way that the new
functionality can be easily disabled and fallen back to the original 
implementation. I
don't unserstand why you take it as my imposing a "hack" on you.  I 
simply suggested an
easy solution you could do in a few second with an editor; otherwise, 
you had to wait during
uncertain period till someone does something in the CVS, which you never 
expect me to do because
I don't have write-access to the CVS repository. If you are really a 
developer, you don't call
it a hack anyway, which is simply adding one-line C-preprocessor 
directive to code, do you?
Or, can't you write a patch to configure.ac to add a compilation switch 
useful for you?
Don't pretend you are an end-user.

Fred Kiefer is the only person who was against the adoption of the patch 
(but after it was
adopted).  So I sent emails to him and bug-gnustep on some technical 
issues which I thought
should be got around for us to obtain a complete gpbs. I think, once we 
can find a way to get
around them, it's a matter of time for us to get a reliable gpbs.  But 
he failed to reply
to them and begun to work his own way (with a wrong way I've been 
worrying about and carefully
avoided) without notifying people of it.  What was worse to me, he asked 
me to modify my recent
patch in accordance with his modification.  I'm completely free from any 
responsibility for that.

I don't think skipping the discussion on the way and beginning to do 
whatsoever they want to
do with expecting someone to fix it, are either fair or good.

I'm very perplexed and cannot find a way to cooperate with you all in 
doing more on the
problem unless you change your ways, which is too arrogant for me to put 
up with.  I'll
never be a "somebody" who willingly cleans up what you all messed up.

Thank you for the brandnew "broken" (by your definition) gpbs, anyway.  
Period!

Regards,
- Kazu