On 22 Feb 2005 12:17, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: > 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: > (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).
I think it's in, or related to, Claude's patch. That's why I asked him for his help, and if he could not spare the time, the patch set he used leading up to it. I never even found out if he had them or not. The bug is present in alpha1, which limits the likely culprits the ten changes present in that version, nine if you don't count the workspace patch itself. Of those, everything from the description of the patches to debugging the actual code points at #8, the Xinerama patch as either the cause or the trigger. > 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. Documenting it is pointless, since the bug renders the workspace patch null and void. Reverting the patch is a better solution, it's not that big. /Bj�rn
