On 12 May 2010 11:44, Chris Bannister <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:59:25PM +0200, Frédéric Perrin wrote: >> bijoy: you may be more interested in fvwm2-devel, which sports 2.5.28, >> than in fvwm2 which has 2.4.20. > > Been wondering for a while why you have to alter your config file > when you upgrade fvwm? That is, after you upgrade fvwm you start getting > "Deprecated: ... " messages. Doesn't good design mitigate the necessity > for this.
Yes -- and deprecation warnings ensure this. Note that for FVWM 2.5.X there *are no guarantees* and options can and will change format/name/colour/size, etc., potentially without warning. It's only out of politness and good thought that there are deprecation warnings at all. And note again, where there are deprecation warnings, FVWM will convert that old value to the newer one on your behalf, and often *tell* you what the new format is. For free. I rather like that. :) When FVWM 2.5.X goes stable, of course, the fvwm-convert-2.6 script which I've been writing will ensure those deprecation warnings are catered for, which is the correct thing to do -- it's a *stable* release after all. > I understand that it may be necessary in some situations, like a major > design rethink/change, but it seems to occur rather frequently. See above. -- Thomas Adam
