On 14:54 12 Apr 2003, Ken Deeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 3) How "unstable" is 2.5.x? Is it like a "its a CVS snapshot so it might | not even compile" type of unstable? or is it a "it mostly works but | there might be a few bugs" kind of stable. [...]
It's the second kind. I've been running 2.5.x fvwms for quite a while now and they've been very good. They are not random snapshots. Even CVS is often quite good - I think they developers adhere fairly well to "don't commit unless the build succeeds" methodology, which makes using the CVS HEAD checkout at least feasible. There's LOTS of nice stuff in the 2.5 series - I don't use 2.4 at all and hope never to have to - I use and like too many of the new features. The main thing which may bite you is than in 2.5 they feel fairly free to fiddle the keywords. They tend to keep backwards compatibility to a degree (lots of nice warnings about "don't use X, use Y instead!" when you run up an old config with newer FVWM, and often the old keyword still works anyway, easing transition). Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ Indeed! But do not reject these teachings as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true. - Malaclypse the Younger -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
