All of you, please don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work done
by Quinnstorm. There are just some important things I can't agree. I
think Who pointed this out very well! If you remove gconf and upstream
uses gconf, this is an important change, which makes quinn-compiz a fork
in my opinion. And forking in this early stage of a project isn't good
at all if you ask me. Now you could say, well David doesn't accept much
patches, which is true. But I haven't seen ANY attempt on the fdo compiz
mailing list to bring all these new plugins and stuff into upstream's
Now, as Who said, if you want a package to integrate in a distribution,
you need it to act the same like the rest. If the biggest part of the
desktop applications use gconf, it is likely that compiz should use it
to. It is of course ok to have other configuration backends, but for a
distro, which uses GNOME all the way, gconf is the way to go. I don't
see any reason in removing gconf compatability.
CGWD is another thing, it's a great piece of software of course, it can
do all that stuff you wished to do with gnome-window-decorator. But
again, this is such a big diversion from upstream and no attempt was
made to make David accept cgwd upstream.
Well, my point is, all these changes just lead to a fork, and this is
bad I think. So, instead of adding constantly new code, maybe one should
try to bring it all upstream and stabilize it and get it into Ubuntu!
ubuntu-devel mailing list