"Matthew D. Fuller" <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip>
> It's worth bearing in mind I don't really know what all's in there. I > eyeballed it and it seems moderately extensive in how many places it > touches, which always opens up the chances for odd interactions > somewhere. And that reinforced by the "I think it's good, but there > are places I'm not exercising" vibe. > > But, I'm not in that code, so it's just an impression. That > impression leads me to think IWBNI a few more people could say "Hey, > I've run it a couple days and it seems OK", but that doesn't mean I'm > not overestimating it, and I'm definitely not waving any sort of veto > pen around. I suspect I am not the only one who has not looked at what's being discussed in this thread, and don't know whether I would benefit from trying to use the facilities. A possible way to get 'a few more people' to try it and report would be for someone knowledgeable to prepare a message to the list saying something like: If you put this into your .ctwmrc <.... sample contents for testing ....> and then try doing the following actions what you should observe is ... and the reason this is interesting/beneficial for some people is because .... That would minimise the effort required for being a tester willing to help CTWM, who might also learn something useful by trying. It might also serve as first draft documentation on the new facilities, to go into the Man file. In fact, nothing less would induce me to test something I don't know I already need, given all the other pressures on my time! I suspect I am not the only one. Aaron
