"I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork." Sorry, that should say: I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series as a fork.
On 25 July 2014 10:51, Charles Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > This change sounds sensible to me. I would be more than happy to turn > compiz-core-bzr back into compiz-bzr. > > Regarding compiz.org, that has been dead for a long time and I wouldn't > consider it an authority on Compiz information. For instance: on the front > page of wiki.compiz.org it states that 0.8.8 is the latest 0.8 release > and 0.9.8 is the latest 0.9 release when it is actually 0.8.9 and 0.9.11 > respectively. > > I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork. It's a development > branch which should theoretically be released as Compiz 0.10 or Compiz 1.0 > in the same way that GNOME 3.13 is a development branch that will be > released as 3.14 in the future. > > Regarding the renaming of the 0.8 packages. Perhaps they could be called > compiz0.8 instead of compiz-legacy. This sometimes happens in the official > repos. For instance: there's wxgtk (which is at version 3) and wxgtk2.8. > Just a thought. > > Regards > > > On 25 July 2014 10:23, Rob McCathie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >> >> >> >> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >> >> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >> >> >> >> My opinions/suggestions: >> >> >> >> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >> >> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >> >> >> >> All information on this page: >> >> http://www.compiz.org/ >> >> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >> >> should not be used as a reference for anything. >> >> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >> >> https://launchpad.net/compiz >> >> >> >> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >> >> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >> >> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >> >> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >> >> that being an additional 5 months back. >> >> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >> >> >> >> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >> >> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >> >> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >> >> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >> >> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >> >> it's just "compiz". >> >> >> >> Some examples: >> >> >> >> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-core" >> >> >> >> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >> >> >> >> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >> >> >> >> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >> >> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >> >> >> >> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >> >> >> >> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >> >> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >> >> >> >> ...and so on. >> >> >> >> What are everyone's thoughts? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Rob McCathie >> > >> >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect >> >that? >> >> I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site. >> >> >The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the >> >site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of >> >their fork until they move to Mir. >> >> I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired >> lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series >> I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be >> considered anything other than the true successor. >> >> Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The >> Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz >> by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from >> launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this >> with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined >> with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rob McCathie >> > >
