On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:11:57AM +, Ethan Raynor wrote:
> I can understand personal opinions - they're important and they happen
> all the time with projects, I understand that. But I don't think it is
> very fair to say I should not read it - when I won't know weather it's
> there or not to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:58:42AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:52:51AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > By the way, any idea why "make distcheck" has never caught the
> > faulty uninstallation of the symlinks?
>
> Nope, no idea.
>
> I find dist/distcheck to be some seriou
Hi,
I can understand personal opinions - they're important and they happen
all the time with projects, I understand that. But I don't think it is
very fair to say I should not read it - when I won't know weather it's
there or not to start with. So I think just not having those
conversations is bet
Please don't top post on the fvwm lists.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:44:47AM +, Ethan Raynor wrote:
> it's those points i would like to see put elsewhere
I've completely understood that it bothers you. If you don't want
to read it, don't. This is an unavoidable part of public software
develo
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:52:51AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> It's still not good. Isn't there a standard Automake way to
> install shell scripts?
IIRC, there's bin_SCRIPTS -- ah, poking around reveals this:
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Scripts.html
Although we're al
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 05:13:22PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 04:09:14PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Bofore you start working on that, please take a look at the
> > dv/fix-transform-name branch.
>
> OK, this looks good. I'm surprised that FvwmCommand.sh is installed to
Hi,
You must permit me an observation as I am quite new here - but most of
the emails I've read recently have only a little on fvwm and the rest
of the content is mostly personal - it's those points i would like to
see put elsewhere as that doesnt have much - if anything- to do with
fvwm.
or am i
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:07:42AM +, Ethan Raynor wrote:
> Is it OK to request these sorts of conversations take place someplace
> else?
No.
If there's one place for discussing fvwm development, it's this
mailing list.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
Hi,
Is it OK to request these sorts of conversations take place someplace
else? I did not know before that there's a lot of heated
conversations. I don't want to have to read these.
Please be considerate. Or agree on something and move on, may be?
Ethan
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Dominik
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 04:09:14PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Bofore you start working on that, please take a look at the
> dv/fix-transform-name branch.
OK, this looks good. I'm surprised that FvwmCommand.sh is installed to
/.../libexec/fvwm/$(VERSION) without execute permissions. But this i
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:03:52PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> We won't need the
> fvwm2 symlink at all since that would be misleading, surely?
Yes, it's time to remove it (and the fvwm2.1 symlink), and
probably the xpmroot symlink too.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:03:52PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 04:30:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:06:19AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:43:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Why on earth do we have to repeat
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:03:52PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 04:30:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:06:19AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:43:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > > Why on earth do we have to repeat
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 04:30:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:06:19AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:43:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Why on earth do we have to repeat the mistake of the past by
> > > putting the version number in the p
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:06:19AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:43:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Why on earth do we have to repeat the mistake of the past by
> > putting the version number in the project name *again*? Every
> > other project manages backwards incomp
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 02:43:13AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Why on earth do we have to repeat the mistake of the past by
> putting the version number in the project name *again*? Every
> other project manages backwards incompatible releases just fine,
> only fvwm changes its name with each maj
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 01:05:23AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:23:23AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > "Copying" was a bad choice of words. With fvwm3, what I would suggest is
> > taking the current fvwm2 repository (including all of its branches) and
> > making that the b
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:23:23AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> "Copying" was a bad choice of words. With fvwm3, what I would suggest is
> taking the current fvwm2 repository (including all of its branches) and
> making that the basis for fvwm3. That way, we can change it however we like.
> We're
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
I'm just a recent user of fvwm full time and haven't been around long
enough to appreciate many of the issues raised in this email. I can
see though that fvwm's history goes back a long way and that might
have a few reasons why these issu
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:30:08AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> From the point of view of the users and the people reading
> fvwm-workers I am very sceptical. We have already abandoned cvs
> in favour of git, and as you can see, this has even further
> reduced the number of old timers who have set
This is important enough to warrant a separate discussion thread.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:45:46PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> Oh, and the point of a separate repo still stands, in my eyes. You might
> think it moot, or even an unnecessary point, but I feel it's a very important
> one. It rein
21 matches
Mail list logo
