On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:35:42AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:01:20PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:26:19AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > The branch dv/stable-fvwm2 is up for review. Collecting the
> > > patches was a piece of cake. Just o
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:01:20PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:26:19AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The branch dv/stable-fvwm2 is up for review. Collecting the
> > patches was a piece of cake. Just one conflict with the NEWS
> > file. The branch builds fine for me, w
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:26:19AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The branch dv/stable-fvwm2 is up for review. Collecting the
> patches was a piece of cake. Just one conflict with the NEWS
> file. The branch builds fine for me, without warnings, and I'm
> using it now for work.
Indeed -- it seems
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> I am looking at releasing 2.6.7 this weekend. AFAIAC, this release will be
> the last stable/supported version. Up to this point I've installed all
> optional libraries and fixed all the warnings for the versions I have
> available (F
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:01:04AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> That leaves much room for interpretation. A "clean break" to me
> would mean to write it from scratch, and that's practically
> impossible because the fvwm2 window managing code contains many
> hundreds of hours undocumented experienc
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:38:17AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:08:21AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > I wouldn't bother with this point---fvwm3 should be a separate repository
> > > entirely.
> >
> > Why? Unless some people step up and tell us they'd want to take
> >
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:08:21AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I wouldn't bother with this point---fvwm3 should be a separate repository
> > entirely.
>
> Why? Unless some people step up and tell us they'd want to take
> over fvwm2 development, what is the gain of duplicating all
> infrastruct
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:08:21AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:53:44AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48:01AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Okay, then how about this:
> > >
> > > 1. Start a branch fvwm2-stable at 2.6.6 and document it as the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:53:44AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48:01AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Okay, then how about this:
> >
> > 1. Start a branch fvwm2-stable at 2.6.6 and document it as the
> >long term stable branch.
>
> OK.
>
> > 2. Backport fixes and f
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48:01AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Okay, then how about this:
>
> 1. Start a branch fvwm2-stable at 2.6.6 and document it as the
>long term stable branch.
OK.
> 2. Backport fixes and functional changes from master.
OK. (Which, and why?)
> 3. Release 2.6.7 on t
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:52:03PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:24:58PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > How about a compromise: Leave the code in, but announce that
> > these features are deprecated and will not be maintained anymore.
> > So, if any people still use some o
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:24:58PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> How about a compromise: Leave the code in, but announce that
> these features are deprecated and will not be maintained anymore.
> So, if any people still use some of them (FvwmTheme, FvwmWinList,
> FvwmTaskBar and GNOME support being
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:50:48AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:46:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > The old stable branch should provide important fixes for people
> > who use old versions, and that includes not taking away stuff from
> > them, no? The idea is that peo
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:46:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> The old stable branch should provide important fixes for people
> who use old versions, and that includes not taking away stuff from
> them, no? The idea is that people who have some good (but rare)
> reason to stick with the old vers
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:22:08AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:12:19AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > I am looking at releasing 2.6.7 thi
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 13:19 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> I am looking at releasing 2.6.7 this weekend. AFAIAC, this release will be
> the last stable/supported version. Up to this point I've installed all
> optional libraries and fixed all the warnings for the versions I have
> available (Fre
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:12:19AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I am looking at releasing 2.6.7 this weekend. AFAIAC, this release will be
> > the last stable/supporte
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I am looking at releasing 2.6.7 this weekend. AFAIAC, this release will be
> the last stable/supported version. Up to this point I've installed all
> optional libraries a
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On the back of the current TODO.md file, I'll draft a list of key-features as
> I see them and send it out for review/discussion here.
I've tentatively started a skeleton file to collate ideas. See the 'ta/next'
branch in git, hence:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:25:53PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > * From version X+1 onwards, no guarantees are made about
> > >continued support of obscure featur
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > * From version X+1 onwards, no guarantees are made about
> >continued support of obscure features, until there's an
> >official fvwm-3.0.
>
> I am looking at re
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama,
> colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a
> maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old
> systems still running that use some ob
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:25:47PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama,
> > colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a
> > maintainable and nice future fvwm3,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:20:25PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama,
> colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a
> maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old
> systems still running that use some ob
While the enthusiasm to remove outdated stuff (strokes, Xinerama,
colourmaps, old parser etc.) is an important step towards a
maintainable and nice future fvwm3, there are certainly some old
systems still running that use some obscure features.
In order to not alienate long time users from fvwm we
25 matches
Mail list logo
