Re: [STUMP] [stumpwm-contrib]

[aaermolov]

Hi David,

Thanks for clearing this up even further!

By the way, is there any single source of truth for for all those
changes vectors you described? Maybe some kind of TODO list was
established somewhere? I've migrated to stumpwm about more than
3 years at this time and very much like both the idea and all the hard
work doen form the start including yours. 

So now Stumpwm is large part of my workflow and I want it to evolve ant
thrive even further. I talk about all this because despite having not
too much time to hack on stumpwm I definitely want to help making it
better. For example, I keep in mind our talk some time ago (on Github)
about improving stumpwm-contrib extensions documentation. I think it
could be good staring point (though not much of writing code). Moreover,
I have some thoughts about improving stumpwm itself - at least what I've
found cumbersome or in some other way distracting. These thoughts may be
wrong in any way due to possible disalignment with current stumpwm
development (new ideas introduced/implemented, etc.), that's why I'm
asking :)

regards, 
Alex

David Bjergaard  writes:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I am accepting PRs for both stumpwm and contrib.  The bar for entry into 
> stumpwm
> contrib is very low, but sometimes it takes me a few days to just hit the 
> merge
> button.
>
> For stumpwm I don't usually merge without reviewing the code and making sure
> that it doesn't break the build.  
>
> My reference to putting stumpwm in maintenance mode, was from my perspective 
> as
> maintainer.  There's a lot of the underlying structure of stumpwm that is
> showing its age.  While the codebase is mature and mostly bug-free (if not
> quirky), it probably won't make it another decade.  I would rather focus my
> major development efforts on restructuring stumpwm as a "stumpwm 2.0 codenamed
> paulownia."
>
> Anyway, PRs are very welcome!
>
> Best,
>
> David
> 
>
> aaermo...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Hi, Joram
>>
>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>>
>> I've just came over the email from David saying about maintainance mode,
>> about a year ago, and just went curious if it affects merging new code
>> in any way because my last contribution were merged much earlier than
>> mentioned email was sent. 
>>
>> regards,
>> Alex 
>>
>> Joram Schrijver  writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> PRs are definitely still being merged into both stumpwm and
>>> stumpwm-contrib. In fact, PRs for both have been merged a few hours ago.
>>>
>>> It sometimes takes a few days for changes to be reviewed and accepted,
>>> but they are very welcome.
>>>
>>> --
>>>   Joram
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 07:58 PM, aaermo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Since StumpWM gone in maintainance mode more than a year ago, I may have
 been overlooked possible respective status change of stumpwm-contrib
 project.
 
 So, is there a chance for PRs to land in stumpwm-contrib, and if not,
 could this status be changed in some foreseeble future?
 
 regards,
 Alex
 
 ___
 Stumpwm-devel mailing list
 Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
 https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>>
>> ___
>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel

___
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel

Re: [STUMP] [stumpwm-contrib]

[David Bjergaard]

Hi Alex,

I am accepting PRs for both stumpwm and contrib.  The bar for entry into stumpwm
contrib is very low, but sometimes it takes me a few days to just hit the merge
button.

For stumpwm I don't usually merge without reviewing the code and making sure
that it doesn't break the build.  

My reference to putting stumpwm in maintenance mode, was from my perspective as
maintainer.  There's a lot of the underlying structure of stumpwm that is
showing its age.  While the codebase is mature and mostly bug-free (if not
quirky), it probably won't make it another decade.  I would rather focus my
major development efforts on restructuring stumpwm as a "stumpwm 2.0 codenamed
paulownia."

Anyway, PRs are very welcome!

Best,

David


aaermo...@gmail.com writes:

> Hi, Joram
>
> Thanks for clearing this up.
>
> I've just came over the email from David saying about maintainance mode,
> about a year ago, and just went curious if it affects merging new code
> in any way because my last contribution were merged much earlier than
> mentioned email was sent. 
>
> regards,
> Alex 
>
> Joram Schrijver  writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> PRs are definitely still being merged into both stumpwm and
>> stumpwm-contrib. In fact, PRs for both have been merged a few hours ago.
>>
>> It sometimes takes a few days for changes to be reviewed and accepted,
>> but they are very welcome.
>>
>> --
>>   Joram
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 07:58 PM, aaermo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Since StumpWM gone in maintainance mode more than a year ago, I may have
>>> been overlooked possible respective status change of stumpwm-contrib
>>> project.
>>> 
>>> So, is there a chance for PRs to land in stumpwm-contrib, and if not,
>>> could this status be changed in some foreseeble future?
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>>> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>>
>> ___
>> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
>> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>
> ___
> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel

___
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel