On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:28:11AM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: > Hello -- > > 2009/2/27 Dominik Vogt <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 09:49:00PM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: [snip] > I've spent about the last three hours looking through the Jitterbug > (which is a disaster in usability and User Interface Design, by the > way) and I have come to the sling-shot conclusion that most of the > entries in there are *so* old (mostly in excess of eight/nine years) > that if there's problems still existed today in 2.4.2X or 2.5.X, > *someone* would have complained about it since. Of course, I suppose > the converse holds true that people have, and no one has gone back to > close the bug report.
Fair enough. Of course there were some reports on the mailing list, but as far as I remember nothing really bad. > >> Is there a concrete roadmap for transitioning the current unstable > >> branch of FVWM to stable, and effectively deprecating FVWM 2.4.X? I > > > > No. Any help is welcome. > > Right -- in that case, I am proposing I should go through the entire > bug database and try and reproduce as many of the bugs therein as I > can -- I am though limited by hardware. I do not have access to an > HP-UX machine running some antiquated UNIX. At a pinch I have access > to SunOS here at home (nothing quite like CDE! Although I think it's > more likely running olwm ISTR) which I could potentially use. I imagine that would be an *awful* lot of work. > The only question I'd have about doing that: do you (Dominik) or > anyone else have any recollection as to how the Jitterbug database > is/was organised? It's just a collection of mailboxes. The names of the mailboxes reflect the report's state and should be fairly self explaining. If not, just ask what you don't understand. [snip] > > At least, we need to discuss D.2 in the todo-2.6. Also, I really > > wouldn't like to have a half working FvwmProxy in a stable > > release (E.6 and E.7). > > With regards D.2 (key release bindings), I remember sometime in FVWM > 2.3.X we had just that but it was very problematic. In all my years > of supporting FVWM, I have only come across half a dozen people > requesting this. And I can't say it's something I myself would find > particularly useful. I'm not sure if you're saying we should revert back to the old, buggy code or keep it as it is. I think the downside was that you have to change mouse bindings in some cases, somewhat like this: mouse 1 ??? ??? move --> addtofung foo_move + i move mouse 1 ??? ??? foo_move (can't remember what the ??? should be replaced with). [snip] > > What we really need are people who do the tedious coding work. I > > had ambitious plans for 3.0 (lots and lots of work), and either > > they are dropped or we find someone to code them (of course (sh) > > would have to write everything I tell him/her ;-) ) > > Ha! Unlikely. :) I don't mind the "tedious coding work" but it's > still knowing -what- that is which alludes I think most of us. Whatever, let's first take on 2.6. > Can we then officially retire the Jitterbug? It's awful, no longer > maintained upstream, and frankly we had a much better success rate > tracking bugs on this mailing list. That's fine with me. We never really used it properly. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
