2013/5/27 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com>

On 27 May 2013 13:19, Christian Costa <titan.costa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Original ddraw/d3d used
> the same format as d3drm until you changed it (as well as methods names).

This is perhaps slightly bad form, but since you're pressing the
point: Yes, and those were hardly the only things that were wrong with
it.

This is your point of view.

> Since you're working on
> it that's not a problem but there is no need to change other dlls if you're
> not working on them.

Clearly I'm working on it now. However, if what you're actually saying
is that you're claiming maintainership over d3drm that's ok, but then
I'd also like to see some actual maintenance.

André and I have been working on it so far when needed so yes.

I'm wondering what work you're doing. So far I've only seen some cleanup like LP stuff removal.

That would be better to see real code before cleaning the code to suit your taste.

And anyway if I had to work again on d3drm after you changed all the traces or whatever,
should I change all traces back to something I prefer because I'm working on it, forgetting people that may
have recently worked or still working on it? If you think your traces are better that would be better to convince people and put

something in the coding guideline. Currently there is no parenthesis whereas all code in wine use them for tracing function call

and this make log lines longer which some was arguing it was a bad thing.