Since you're only providing another anecdotal point of view, I fail to see how you can judge his comment to be false.

Because it doesn't sound like the mailing list at all. They do in fact spend the time to explain these things. Here's one of my first patches, where I would get almost everything wrong.

http://www.mail-archive.com/wine-devel@winehq.org/msg50828.html

Well I would fire someone who bases their arguments without any proof. Has Sun provided a link to his patch submission so we can discuss this futher? No.

To quote my post you're replying to...

However, without giving us the link to his patch on the mailing list we have no way of telling.

You would fire someone that demands proof? You sound like a bad manager who bases their opinions on personal feelings.

You are like a Dilbert comic strip. Passing all the tests because there aren't any for the functionality you've implemented is something worthy of a dailywtf submission. Not a software project which consists of millions of lines of code, used on millions of machines and writing to an ever changing specification.

As for your package maintainers comment, it's not going to happen. It's already been discussed to death on the mailing lists that it's a bad idea to have anything but vanilla wine.

The only person who wants a fork is you. You wrote this article, you're the one whining in the comments. If you want a fork so bad make one. I would happily contribute to both your fork and main wine. So go ahead, why haven't you already started instead of wasting your time on slashdot?

4. RTFA: "DIB Engine : Passing all tests"

From the latest discussions on the mailinglist this isn't true..

The engine has still some known bugs (known by me :-) ) which are not spotter
by wine testsuite, mostly related to coordinate spaces in xxxBlt functions.

So yes, it "passes all the tests", but that's only because there aren't enough tests.

The problem is that the maintainers follow a commercial agenda of their own and have to keep Wine crappier than their product.

This is stupid for many reasons however it's what I would expect from you since you're the author who submitted this nonsensical piece in the first place.

If you follow the WINE development at all then you should KNOW that there are numerous hacks that although work should never be committed upstream until they have be properly re-written. Just because code weavers includes these hacks in their release doesn't mean it's better, in fact I would call it worse. Also you can download the code weavers diff any time and patch it to upstream wine. Why don't you submit you own patches if you think something is being withheld. Code weavers will even tell you how to do it.

I would say "Good luck with your fork", obviously it will be a monstrous pile of hacks with regressions in every commit. However, we both know you'll never get that far because you want someone to do the forking for you, otherwise why post this on slashdot?

I've submitted many patches to wine and Alex has always given me good feedback. Without a link to the parent's patches so we can judge for ourselves I would have to say that what Sun is saying is false.

There's a couple of reasons why patches get rejected:
- The code style doesn't match what's in the file
- No test cases are submitted with a function implementation
- The patche's test cases fail on windows

I am subscribed to the mailing list and often see people get frustrated that they have to do more work then just throw code over the fence.

In the case of Sun's patch it sounds like "not pretty" means he either did something like put in C++ style comments or didn't match the coding standard on the file he was editing. However, without giving us the link to his patch on the mailing list we have no way of telling.

If you want to develop a platform independent C++ application you should try the following setup..

cmake - Used to generate makefiles and VS project settings
Graphics - Horde3D, Ogre3D, Irrlicht
Sound - OpenAL, FMOD
Keyboard, Joystick, etc - Open Input System