Le Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:33:00 -0500,
Tom Horsley a écrit :
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:06:36 +0100
> Adam Sjøgren wrote:
>
> > I think it would be much more accurate to call FVWM "mature".
>
> An even better word is "useful" (unlike many linux products under
> frenetic active development by folks w
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:06:36 +0100
Adam Sjøgren wrote:
> I think it would be much more accurate to call FVWM "mature".
An even better word is "useful" (unlike many linux products under
frenetic active development by folks who believe change is always
good no matter how stupid it is :-).
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 02:28:16AM -0800, Jason Timrod wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it true that fvwm has no maintainer now? if so, is fvwm still being
No. For years, FVWN has had no *one* maintainer *by design*. Any one with
a commit bit is effectively able to commit back.
-- Thomas Adam
