Hi,
I have to agree. Part of the reason is that there is not a lot of FVWM
development is that it does what it does very well and has not needed a
lot of change.
I know that I've heard people asking for support for 3D effects, but I've
never heard a complaint about the configuration format. What are the
shortcomings of the current configuration format that the new format
addresses?
Cheers,
Ron
--
If C++ is your only tool, all problems look like your thumb.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Tom Horsley wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:48:49 -0400
From: Tom Horsley <horsley1...@gmail.com>
Cc: f...@fvwm.org, fvwm-workers@fvwm.org
Subject: Re: FVWM: [Draft] New Configuration Format
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:38:04 +0200
Bert Geens wrote:
Hello fellow Fvwm users,
Thomas has started working on a draft for a new configuration format
that should fix some of the shortcomings of the current one.
There are no shortcomings in the current format :-). It has the
overwhelmingly important attribute of not frigging changing out
from under me every dadgum release because someone thinks it
is too old and needs to change. I use fvwm because it keeps working
the same way all the time when everything else on linux is
cursed with change for the sake of change.
Don't do it :-).
