Ethan Raynor <ethanrayno...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote: >> Sounds to me like you are not subscribed to fvwm-workers. >> If you care about things like the repository, you should subscribe. > > ok - I will do this. How busy is the list?
Not very, but when the conversation turns to development issues only, fvwm-workers@ is sometimes used without fvwm@ being included. >> Read the various TODO files. > > The only one I can see is this one - > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/master/TODO.md That's the current file. You would have to look in older releases to see the evolution. > i confess to not completely understanding the rationale for some of > the items there. >From docs/old_info/TODO Please note that not everything on this list will be done, in particular the ones that end in '?' which are really just meant to be 'think about this and perhaps investigate'. But they are things that I didn't want to lose track of. It may periodically get out of date too... >> I'd like to see improvements in the way parsing is done >> inside fvwm. There is so much parsing code that does >> the same basic thing. A table driven approach would >> be a big improvement. >> >> If the command syntax has to change to get there, >> I'd like to understand why. > > well afaict the proposal is to rip up things more than that - why? As I said, our two most productive developers saw the need. I too remain unconvinced of the benefits. That's why development is conducted in an open forum. The very fact that Thomas is publishing a write up instead of diving into changes tells me he's looking for these kinds of comments. -- Dan Espen
