In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:49:21 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
dl> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Bjorn Knutsson wrote: dl> > 1) Someone else takes ownership of the bug, finds it and fixes it. dl> > 2) We start from 3.6, apply patches until it manifests, and then back dl> > out the patch that causes the problem until it can be resolved. dl> > 3) Back out the workspace patch. dl> dl> 4) For the time being, consider this a "Known bug" and accept that dl> this (excuse me for saying so) minor patch does not work dl> exactly as expected. As far as I know, this bug does not cause dl> ctwm to crash - does it? Actually, I like Bj�rns second item, from a conceptual point of view. I am, however, not willing to do that myself, and since you, Bj�rn, have the same access to the CVS repository as the rest of the world (hmm, I just noticed I haven't mentioned this on the pages, have I mentioned it here? Basically, CVSROOT is :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED], the password is blank and the module is X/ctwm), you should be perfectly able to go from 3.6, and take every step until today. May I suggest you use cvs2cl to track the change sets? (still talking to Bj�rn) Of course, if the change that is incorrect according to you is among the stuff I got from Claude, you're out of luck. Claude didn't use any SCM, as far as I understood, so that part of history is gone (unless Claude has a really great memory for this kind of thing, after all these years). Claude, that was not critisism of how you did things. You made your choices, and that's that. dl> Disrespecting other people's work is about the most abusive thing dl> I know. Which is why I "feel the need" to bite back. Actually, dl> my first intuition told me to just unsubscribe from this list and dl> leave ctwm to bleed. Whoaaaa! OK, first of all, we're just talking here, nothing has actually been done. From my point of view, talking is good, that's how issues are resolved, so I will allow it. Everyone has a right to an opinion (including you, of course), as long as it's on topic. However, if you're trying to use "leaving" as a threat, just know that it reaches nowhere. Personally, I find that a silly threat, considering Bjorn has no more rights than you to commit anything to the source. If I (or anyone else with commit rights) did things you found completely idiotic, consistently over time, then I'd understand you'd leave. Do you have an issue with opinions being expressed? If so, I suggest you take care of that, and not on this list. dl> Now, can we please stop wasting even more time on this matter. My dl> counter-suggestion is that we move current to 3.7b1. As far as I dl> know we have pretty much taken care of any other a5 issues (such dl> as Rudy's bug). We should of course document the bug discussed dl> above in the appropriate places (manpage and readme?). If someone is willing to write a blob about it, I'd be happy to put it in. There's a perfect place, the BUGS section in ctwm.man. dl> I'm sure we'll get a lot more issues reported if we try to move to dl> a stable release in a near future, many are prone not to use dl> neither alpha nor beta versions. Mmmm, the usual curse, not getting bug reports during the beta period, which is meant to get rid of the bugs *before* the release :-/. dl> And this time we should propably issue a few bugfix releases dl> (3.7.1 etc) instead of leaving bunches of patches dangling in dl> void - I suspect this is what really created this mess. I agree. What I will do as soon as I feel ready to release is to create a branch for 3.7, where only bug fixes will be accepted. HEAD will then become 3.8-dev. dl> Richard, you said you had a few more tickets you wanted to look at dl> before a beta-release? Actually, what I want to do is look through all the tickets and try to figure out what can be applied now. I haven't looked at RT for at least half a year (divorce matters kept getting in the way), so I've got a bit of catching up to do. dl> I think I found some minor problem with my late f.changesize dl> patch, but I think we can live with that too in a beta (I'll dl> report this when I have the time and possiblity to reproduce it). I suggest you report it now, so there's at least a ticket, and update the ticket whenever you have the time to investigate. dl> Any others against moving to 3.7b1? Now that we've had this talk, I'm for it. When I do that, it means feature freeze, so if there are any such things that absolutely have to get into ctwm 3.7, speak up now (and I will reserve the right to say no :-)). Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis
