On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:27:19PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> It's a tricky one.  Right now, things have not diverged because I haven't
> implemented those changes.  I'd always viewed Fvwm3 as being a departure from
> Fvwm2 -- and hence any association with it at the moment as being equivalent
> is just because it's lacking any breaking changes.  It's also an easier
> transition for any one wishing to try Fvwm3 who's previously used Fvwm2.
> That's one of the reasons why I went with version 1.0.0 -- Fvwm3 is going to
> be separate from Fvwm2 over time, in that I'm not expecting to maintain
> compatibility, and I wouldn't therefore want to mislead users with a false
> version number.
> There may well be some overlap with Fvwm2 in terms of unchanged file names
> (fvwm-config springs to mind), although I think for the most part Fvwm2 and
> Fvwm3 can co-exist.  I'll try and make the distinction better in future
> releases, so that it's easier for package maintainers to allow Fvwm2 and Fvwm3
> to coexist.

The exact same reasoning led to the "fvwm2" project, and it caused
a whole lot of useless work to eventually clean up and rename it
to fvwm again.  The autotools can take care of having two versions
installed in parallel (--program-suffix configure option).
Distributors know how to use these options.

And as far as I understand, nobody is going to maintain the 2.x
version anyway.


Dominik ^_^  ^_^


Dominik Vogt

Reply via email to