On 22 Feb 2005 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Bjorn Knutsson wrote: > > I do not know why, or what patch caused this, but it seems that it's > > an interaction between my workspace patch (#1) and later changes. I do > > > My guess, from studying this bug a couple of times, is that both of your > patches together triggered some latent bug. Not an uncommon way for > difficult bugs to appear, since this means that the bug may be anywhere in > the code and not just in the lines changed.
Definitely a possibility. > > 1) Someone else takes ownership of the bug, finds it and fixes it. > > 2) We start from 3.6, apply patches until it manifests, and then back > > out the patch that causes the problem until it can be resolved. > > 3) Back out the workspace patch. > > 4) For the time being, consider this a "Known bug" and accept that this > (excuse me for saying so) minor patch does not work exactly as expected. > As far as I know, this bug does not cause ctwm to crash - does it? No, no crash that I know of from this, but leaving it in it renders the workspace patch null and void, so your 4) is just 3) done wrong. > > Yes, I've looked at alpha5, it's still broken. > > In the sense that the bug is still there. Well, I don't know how you define the word "broken", but if you use the workspace environment as documented, CTWM will prevent many programs from working correctly. > > fairly serious bug at the start of 3.7 that nobody wants to take > > How serious is this? How many ctwm users use the workspace manager context > for keymapping? How serious? Serious enough that I suggest backing my workspace patch out rather than have people bitten by it. I don't know how many use it, I know the patch has been downloaded from my web page a fair number (100>x>1000) of times, and that I have received mails from about 20 people about it since I released it. > > patches for, my suggestion is that we effectively back out that entire > > blob. > > Dan, I don't see why you think this is such an unreasonable thing to > > suggest, given the circumstances, nor why you feel the need to be > > abusive about it. > > I assume there was a substancial amount of work involved in getting from > 3.6 to 3.7a4. I _know_ the amount of work needed to get from 3.7a4 to > 3.7a5. Your suggestion means that we throw all of this away because we > have a known bug in the project. Apart from this I have gotten only > positive feedback on a5. Most people who tried it said nothing at all - > and being a software developer I consider this positive feedback. I don't know how much work that was. I assume you're talking about patch integration, not the work to create the patches in the first place? My experience from integrating patches wasn't that bad, otherwise I would not have made the suggestion. Perhaps CTWM is different, I wouldn't know. I never said "toss everything out". > Disrespecting other people's work is about the most abusive thing I know. > Which is why I "feel the need" to bite back. Actually, my first intuition > told me to just unsubscribe from this list and leave ctwm to bleed. Quite frankly CTWM looks pretty pale at the moment and my suggestion came from a desire to stop the bleeding. /Bj�rn
