On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 02:16:51PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 12 May 2014 12:20, Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
> > On 12 May 2014 12:08, Martin Cermak <marti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So, what's the relationship between your aforementioned private
> >> FVWM cleanup effort [1] and wayland?
> >
> > Absolutely none.
> >
> > -- Thomas Adam
> 
> Perhaps that's OK.  Are there any plans to merge your work back to
> fvwm when you're finished? Is there any reason why this has to be a
> fork and not a branch in cvs?

Go back ten years, maybe a little more and it used to be the case that
forking was bad; considered a social nightmare between a project and its
developers because forking was seen as a resolution to a problem that
couldn't be solved for the project as a whole.

Now though, with the advent of services like GitHub, forking has become more
sociable; the implication that it's just a work-flow of doing work and
contributing back that work to the "canonical" source for that project.

And that's what I'm doing here---this work is something quite disruptive and
making that apparent is something I think is important.  It's completely
different to FVWM at the moment, and is ripping out a lot of the internals
such that they're not so comparable at the moment. Whether this means the
work I'm doing is integrated back to FVWM is undefined; the prerequisite
being I actually have to _do_ some work first.

So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing,
the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've
already identified a few memory leaks.  It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's
being audited for free as a result of this work.

-- Thomas Adam

Reply via email to