Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?

2014-05-19 Thread Thomas Adam 
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

Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?

2014-05-16 Thread Michael Treibton 
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?

Michael

Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?

2014-05-12 Thread Martin Cermak 
On  Mon  2014-05-12  11:26 , Thomas Adam wrote:
 On 11 May 2014 17:57, E Frank Ball III fra...@frankb.us wrote:
  On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote:
   
FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists
but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be
removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things
were growed over the time and interlaced with each other.
 
 
  How will the new display managers (if that's the correct term) such as
  Wayland and Mir effect fvwm?  Does it have to be ported to Wayland to work?
 
 Yes, FVWM would have to be a Wayland Compositor to be able to work correctly.
 
 Good luck with that.
 
 If I were you, I'd let the FUD die down about Wayland and concentrate
 on fluffier things.

So, what's the relationship between your aforementioned private
FVWM cleanup effort [1] and wayland?

 
 -- Thomas Adam

And what are plans of current active FVWM developers re. wayland
porting?

Let me note that FVWM absolutely fits my needs. 

Martin

-
[1] https://github.com/ThomasAdam/fvwm/tree/ta/complete-cleanup