On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:25:47PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama,
> > colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a
> > maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old
> > systems still running that use some obscure features.
> > In order to not alienate long time users from fvwm we may need to
> > make a clean cut at some time:
> > * Up to version X, the old feature set and syntax is supported
> > "forever". There won't be any new features anymore, but if
> > need be, we'll look into fixes like to new library versions and
> > such, so that the old version will continue to run on old boxes.
> > Patches fixing such problems are welcome, and once in a while a
> > new maintenance release is made.
> > * From version X+1 onwards, no guarantees are made about
> > continued support of obscure features, until there's an
> > official fvwm-3.0.
> > Is that doable? WIth X == 2.6.7? (Of course this is all depends
> > on people actually doing that work.)
> It's doable from a code/maintenance point of view, yes. But I hope that
> there's no real expectation that developers or future developers (chance would
> be a fine thing!) who might be working on this mythical fvwm-3, should care
> about fvwm-legacy.
> Oh, and I love the idea---but I am incredibly skpetical about it coming to
> fruition, given that there are so few people developing fvwm these days.
Well, developers or not is one thing, but the first step would be
to *announce* that fvwm2 is not going to be disposed off on the
compost heap. That anybody is welcome if she wants to take care
of the fvwm2 branch for a while, and that the "fvwm3" developers
are not going to put a spoke in her wheel, and support that
maintenance work if possible.
(If it turns out that there are no developers for fvwm this
discussion is moot anyway.)
Dominik ^_^ ^_^