On 30 January 2012 14:37, Chris Siebenmann <c...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote: > | > [...] There are several reasons as of why certain patches aren't > | > accepted. Some of the patches affect areas of fvwm which in the long > | > term goal should be replaced by modules. Others are unclean, and no > | > one has been willing to clean up the code and write documentation for > | > the patches. > | > | i get this but if no work has happened why cant we use the patches? > | its these delays which make users want to use another window manager > > You should be able to use the patches without problems, assuming that > they apply cleanly; just build a personal version of fvwm with the > patches applied. No one requires that you run only fvwm source straight > from the distribution tarballs or the CVS repository. > > If the patches do not apply cleanly or do not work as-is, well, someone > has to do the work to make them work. The fvwm maintainers are not going > to do this work for patches that they feel are a bad idea, for obvious > reasons.
i understand this, chris, but i still do not think you understand my point. these patches, good or bad, have been about for years and no fvwm developer has wanted to clean them up i do not need to understand why - but if their not going to be applied soon - they should issue a statement to say this, and then let others fork fvwm right now i am thinking i will fork fvwm - no one who is a developer cares to answer me. i find that suckie what patches do you write which you maintain then? Harry
