2009/6/30 Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, May 04 2009, Paul Vojta wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 02:31:09AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
>>> 2009/5/3 Paul Vojta <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Right -- so I finally realised what it is you're referring to (albeit
>>> I had to do too much guessing even with that config).  The default for
>>> this changed in 2.5.17 for title warps not to happen on root menus.  I
>>> can't recall why, but the attached patch will hopefully put back the
>>> "old" behaviour.   This isn't being commited in CVS or anything like
>>> that -- this behaviour exists for a reason.
>
>> Still, it is useful to be able to do title warps for root menus, and
>> the WarpTitle option doesn't quite do it.  The WarpTitle option for some
>> reason warps to the first menu item, so if I change my mind and decide
>> not to do anything after clicking the menu I have to move the pointer
>> off of the menu or onto its title before clicking to dismiss the menu
>> or I'll get (in the above example) an extraneous xterm.
>>
>> Does anybody know the reason why the change in 2.5.17 was made?  It's
>> rather unsatisfying to give a valid reason for a change, and be told,
>> "well, there's this other reason for not making the change, and we can't
>> remember what it was, but it was more important."
>
>> I found this as a possible reason:
>>
>>       http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg14996.html
>>
>> It says:
>>
>> | Anyway, TitleWarp should do nothing for root menus.
>> | I'll fix that.
>>
>> I couldn't find anything else about TitleWarp around the time of the
>> change to 2.5.17 (which occurred in late March, 2006).
>
>        What was the conclusion of this thread? Is it going to be
>  treated as a feature request, or just rejected? Personally, I can see
>  some value in the requested feature, but I do want to resolve the issue
>  n the Debian BTS either way.

I'd like to treat it as a feature request -- I don't necessarily want
to add the functionality back in to FVWM at this time --- I'm
personally more interested in stability and bug-fixing at the moment
to get FVWM 2.5.X approaching something we might consider "stable".

-- Thomas Adam

Reply via email to