branch for kdevelop

Matthias Hoelzer-Kluepfel mhk at
Thu Aug 9 08:04:16 UTC 2001

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, F at lk Brettschneider wrote:

> Second, to work for 3.0 assumes that every decision is discussed and
> voted before its realization. AND NOT that a main developer is
> completely ignored, his work of months is completely removed without the
> littlest trial of merging by people who haven't done any work on that
> CVS branch. And that time merging was not the problem at all. AND not
> that people who just were 2 weeks in the KDevelop project can do CVS
> remove actions of a whole tree. AND not that the responsible people do
> not say any little sorry about all of that.


if you talk about me here, you should note that the only
reason why I put gideon into head was that I was _asked_ to do
it. It was my understanding that this was a decission by the
kdevelop team. Maybe this understanding was incorrect. As you
said, I didn't work on the project before, so I didn't know
about the infighting that was/is going on. I was just the one
who had a fast connection and the time to do the commit ;)

But we should look forward, instead of pickering about the
past. I once thought that the great advantage of gideon was
that it might help avoiding the second system syndrome
kdevelop was suffering from. Technically, it definitely does,
but on the personal side, it doesn't.

I think we should try to come over that point soon, or a lot
of time and effort will be wasted. Unfortunately the only way
I can think of how to achieve this would be a meeting, and I
don't know if we can organize such a thing soon. Does anyone
have another idea how we can get to a common base again?


to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request at with the following body:
unsubscribe »your-email-address«

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list