We've already written many times that we got soooo tired up by most of our ideas and wished being rejected as a whole by you, the sole remaining member of TIGCC, that we gave up.
Why didn't you (all of you) ask yourself why your ideas and wishes got rejected? Or actually bothered reading my replies where I've always given the reason?
We all read, for years, why you rejected our ideas and wishes, sometimes in an ungraceful way (like, refusing to upgrade kernel support invoking the ideological "kernels suck !" pretext). And we still disagree with you, with technical or usage arguments to back up our ideas.
Again, I'll point you to my quote of MaeyHem's post on the TIGCC/TICT message board:
topics/115787-gcc4ti-manifesto#5 . You have arguments to back up your claims, we have arguments to back up ours.
You're just too proud to realize that not all your ideas are actually good ideas.
You're just too proud to accept that there's an acceptable way besides your own ideas. As demonstrated by your numerous posts along the lines of "it sucks because it's proprietary" (sometimes posted in a completely off-topic way, you got kicked from several topics...) in various topics of the
sections/2-3-coup-de-gueule ,
sections/2-4-jai-rien-a-dire-mais-jai-envie-den-parler ,
sections/2-1-discussions-generales sections anyway.
When you announced completely irrealistic todo list items (on which you have made zero
progress, more than one year and a month later, and counting !)
Such as? Getting KTIGCC working with kdewin isn't unrealistic at all
No matter the advent of KDE 4.3 (which is what 4.0, or at best 4.1, should have been if KDE had used a sane versioning scheme), forcing people to install the huge non-native kdewin bloat just in order to use a tiny IDE with few distinctive features, questionable capabilities and well-known deficiencies, remains a questionable idea. At the very least, it should definitely not be a priority task (something you gave the impression of, at the time).
and most likely we'd already be there if you guys helped with it instead of forking TIGCC and working on pointless things such as your unnecessary changes to the build scripts (e.g. changing #!/bin/bash to #!/bin/sh and then having to change stuff like echo -n; there was no bug there, as echo is a bash builtin, so echo -n is always available in a #!/bin/bash script!)…
We've already discussed that on #tigcc: reliance on bash
is a portability bug, just as assuming that "make" is GNU make and "install" is GNU install. In the install scripts, we've fixed those portability bugs (which was trivial) and more, added proper error handling, improved the packaging, and more.
while there are much more pressing issues on TIGCC
Such as? TIGCC 0.96 Beta 8 is very reliable, there are just a few minor bugs to fix.
TIGCC 0.96 Beta 8 is nearly three years old (!!), there have been many fixes in the TIGCC CVS and GCC4TI SVN repository since then.
Though we tackled several issues and closed the corresponding tickets, the GCC4TI Trac ticket list is a testimony to the range and depth of open issues on TIGCC... No wonder, because hardly anything new happened in TIGCC since 2005 or so, despite the existence of most of that huge todo/wish list.
(on a side note, hardly any of those have been tackled by you - of your six commits in TIGCC since January 2009, four are GCC4TI backports that tackle some of them, and the two others are trivialities), we said "let's do something together".
Why not together with me?
See above and in many other topics. We've been able to cooperate with dozens of persons in the community over the years, but we haven't been able to cooperate with you, due to your lack of respect towards our ideas and our persons...
You like people as long as they agree with you 100%, but your relationships with other people deteriorate if the agreement rate falls.
Because I didn't let one of you become the head of the project out of the blue? Sorry, things don't work like that, as a new contributor, you start by sending patches, then you get commit after approval and only when you earned the trust of the existing contributors, you can get full comaintainership. (But of course, after what you did, none of you will ever
get that level of trust. You should have thought of the consequences of your actions before doing them.)
By rejecting many of our ideas,
you didn't even let us a chance to make and send most patches (because they wouldn't have gotten in anyway).
That's what we did, and we left you alone in the dust.
You are the ones left alone in the dust, TIGCC is the real TIGCC, GCC4TI is just crap nobody uses.
That's both wishful thinking (contradicted
only by
facts) and a show of total disrespect towards people's work and ideas. But oh well, we on yAronet are accustomed to it. You've been like that for years, and it took way too long to me to understand that.
What did
happen is that you got Julien and Romain to add you after sending a few minor contributions.
THAT is a misrepresentation of the facts: as already written elsewhere, and acknowledged by Romain, I never asked for commit rights.
(IIRC, the patches you sent before getting commit access can be counted on one hand, and they were all fairly small changes, some even buggy and incomplete (the IMG_INFO changes, which you've still not fixed, by the way).)
In case you hadn't noticed, in the past few weeks, I've spent a lot of time on RSA key factoring and the rest. A community adventure of which you've been totally missing.
As one of the co-maintainers at the time, you were Cc on the patches, so you're
also to blame if an incomplete change went in. As one of the co-maintainers for a long time, you're also to blame for the code duplication (that's the root cause of the problem - no code duplication, no way to miss the modification of one of the copies) I didn't detect.
Those folks never bothered to ask the other existing contributors (Tyler and me) for whether they trust you (hint: we don't, see above).
Do you really think they had any need for asking the most biased and predictable person they know of ?
And then Julien and Romain not accepting me as Romain's successor even though I've been the #2 contributor after him for years, and also ignoring Tyler (the original author of the Group File Manager) was just too much.
As you briliantly demonstrated in
topics/122111-tilptiemu-arret-du-developpement (auto-proclamation of maintainership + "I am the maintainer, I do what I want"), you were going to lock down the traditionally open-minded LPG software the way you locked down TIGCC. This was totally unacceptable for the sake of the community - and an utter disrespect for Julien and Romain, who have spent lots of time and energy into raising those projects to what they are. They didn't want to see their effort misappropriated by a well-known sabotager.
We still see ourselves as the legitimate successors of the old LPG, your projects as forks and you as usurpators of the project names.
See yourselves the way you wish
What are you exactly trying to do with this kind of statements, Kevin ? Pissing us off so we moderate your posts or even ban you from this board ? No way, sorry
I'm just telling the truth.
LOL, I was
sure that you were going to blurt out that obscenity
You're just telling
what you'd like the truth
to be,
and what you'd like people to believe. That's
very different.
corecly should be correctly 
)
(Code quality has never been his strength, I used to always proofread his commits and I caught several mistakes that way.)
