On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:11:53AM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:56:07 +0000 Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 20 March 2012 05:23, Ranjan Maitra <mai...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> > > So, I just wanted to be sure: none of the above-mentioned packages are
> > > of much use anymore, is that correct?
> > 
> > Correct.
> > 
> > > Also, are any of the patches in the ArchLinux/Gentoo builds already
> > > included/proposed to be so in fvwm? I wanted to put together a local
> > > RPM for fvwm, and I therefore wanted to know.
> > 
> > They won't be included here at upstream, no.
> 
> Thanks again! May I ask: is the reasoning behind prohibiting
> inclusion of these features upstream philosophical, or is
> it that it increases code complexity or resource usage overhead
> substantially (or something similar)? If the latter, of course that is
> far more serious, and would be helpful to know.

I fail to see why it matters, but it's simply that the code those patches
touch is obsolete and will be replaced, versus some questionable decisions
in *how* those patches work, as well as them lacking in functionality for
hard-coding assumptions, no documentation, etc.

-- Thomas Adam

Reply via email to