On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:48 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:36 +0200, Daniel Borgmann wrote: > > On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Realistically, compiz is unlikely > > > ever to be accepted by either project, because it's a chimera. So why > > > are we dumping so much effort into it? > > > > Why is it a chimera, because the GNOME dependent modules are optional? > > That makes no sense to me. I rather see this as Compiz' biggest > > strength, since it encourages code sharing and cooperation (as well as > > experimentation). Is there really any objective reason why Compiz > > shouldn't be at least considered as a potential successor to Metacity? > > 1) Metacity has, over the years, accumulated a lot of details about > how windows are managed. These were designed to address our users' > and developers' needs. Any replacement would have to dedicate quite > a lot of time to get these details right.
compiz took much of metacity's window placement code. > 2) Metacity's theme format is stable. Dropping in a replacement that > can't use existing themes creates massive churn. compiz 0.2.0 has metacity theme support in the window decorator. > 3) Even if all other things were compatible, having a different binary > name creates some churn that we have yet to solve well. (See the recent > difficulties with changing Gnopernicus to Orca, and how we didn't really > get it right despite a lot of discussion.)x > Why don't we just add the required features to Metacity? See my other mail about technical difficulties. -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell, Inc. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
