msn-pecan 0.1 good enough?
felipe.contreras at gmail.com
Wed Mar 24 09:07:18 UTC 2010
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Christopher Forsythe <chris at growl.info> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 3) The plug-in is not only under-maintained, but also badly maintained
>> I plotted some bug statistics and the results are crystal clear:
>> msn-pecan has fixed 78% of the valid bugs reported, while Pidgin only
> This said, these are just numbers. If 200 people file the same bug and all
> of them are already resolved so the tickets are closed, that boosts the
> numbers. etc etc
That's an unfounded claim. If 200 people file the same bug it will be
marked as duplicate, considered invalid, and out of the calculation.
> So, how is msn-pecan actually better, and worth the pain of introducing new
> bugs and implementing the protocol?
At the end of the day what matters is the code you are running and I
wrote the bulk of both code-bases. If you don't want to believe that
the author of two pieces of code is telling you that one is better
than the other, then I don't think you are listening.
> Also, on another topic. You have had some very obvious personal issues with
> the pidgin/libpurple team. Their opinion is that you are hard to work with.
> Later on down the road if the Adium team uses the plugin you have worked on,
> is this what the team has to look forward to? How do you handle things when
> people take a while to review patches, or do not like your patch?
I contribute to projects such as git, linux kernel, gstreamer,
telepathy, and others. Pidgin is the only project where I just
cannot work, and I've heard people say the same thing, like the
Instantbird maintainer. Perhaps the problem is not me, but Pidgin.
More information about the devel