On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 07:39:29PM -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
Hi,
that page says
If you find any bugs, you can enter them into the FVWM Bug
Tracking System.
But the link is broken.
The link was removed along with other references a while ago. Will take a
look.
-- Thomas Adam
Hi all,
Would any one mind [1] if I removed the links to RPM/DEB packages? There's
no real need for them that I can see, and the downstream distributions do a
much better job than we do.
-- Thomas Adam
[1] By this, I'm hoping for: Yes, what a good idea, rather than waking
up sleeping dogs
Le Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:56:03 +0100,
Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org a écrit :
Jason,
I've updated everything (including this time creating the necessary
CVS branches, etc) and now the two 2.6.1 tar.gz and tar.bz2 files are
sat awaiting your usual release process.
The download links from the
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:29:31PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
Le Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:56:03 +0100,
Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org a ??crit :
Jason,
I've updated everything (including this time creating the necessary
CVS branches, etc) and now the two 2.6.1 tar.gz and tar.bz2 files are
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:41:31PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
Downloading fvwm-2.6.0, I noticed a small mistake in the fvwm-config
script:
[manu@duat ~]$ fvwm-config -v
2.6.0
[manu@duat ~]$ fvwm-config --is-stable
no
Not sure if it was fixed in 2.6.1.
No, because seemingly one
Hi all,
I said I would try and outline where I think we should be in terms of moving
to git. I have to say that I am surprised at just how sudden such a switch
has taken place; in the past I had asked Jason and Dominik off-list what
would be involved, and whether it was a good idea. Reaction
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:29:27PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
Hi all,
I said I would try and outline where I think we should be in terms of moving
to git. I have to say that I am surprised at just how sudden such a switch
has taken place; in the past I had asked Jason and Dominik off-list
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:03:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
I forgot to mention the ChangeLog.
ChangeLog
=
...
So in this way, it's still possible to generate a ChangeLog *after* the
fact.
Actually, with real changeset based development, the ChangeLog is
obsolete. A well
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:45:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
You and I have both got patches in tig, ISTR. :)
Yes, I remember that. :-)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Phew, so much text. :-)
Sorry about that -- I did warn it was lengthy.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:29:27PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
Workflow Ideas
==
I've had very good experiences with this setup:
* There is
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm-web
Changes by: tadam 11/04/17 04:00:41
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog
download : index.php
Log message:
Remove link to bug tracker on download page.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* The topic branches should usually belong to only one developer.
The owner of a topic branch is responsible for keeping it in
sync with the devel or release
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:24:41 -0500 c...@math.uh.edu wrote:
Fixes to fvwm-menu-desktop
* Make XML::Parser a runtime check, as it's a non-core module.
This replaces a cryptic error Can't locate XML/Parser.pm in @INC...
with a nicer error message; unfortunately, it also complicates
packaging of
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:29:43AM +0400, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:24:41 -0500 c...@math.uh.edu wrote:
Fixes to fvwm-menu-desktop
* Make XML::Parser a runtime check, as it's a non-core module.
This replaces a cryptic error Can't locate XML/Parser.pm in @INC...
with
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 06:24:37PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
* The topic branches should usually belong to only one developer.
The owner of a topic branch is
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 09:42:09AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
Hi all,
Would any one mind [1] if I removed the links to RPM/DEB packages? There's
no real need for them that I can see, and the downstream distributions do a
much better job than we do.
-- Thomas Adam
[1] By this, I'm
Le Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:12:03 -0500,
Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu a écrit :
TA == Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org writes:
TA You've been around here long enough by now to *surely* appreciate
TA it's up to Jason to move them out of ftp:// to the links shown
TA above?
Sorry about
17 matches
Mail list logo
