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I fail to see why it matters, but it's simply that the code those patches touch is obsolete and will be replaced, versus some questionable decisions in *how* those patches work, as well as them lacking in functionality for hard-coding assumptions, no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