Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > I propose following strategy. I'd like to wait until October, if > Kris will re-appear till then, everything is fine. If not, we > need another maintainer for wmii. I won't do the job again,
So you refuse to maintain wmii and there is no visible replacement maintainer, but you are still directing it's development? Do you expect this to work? > because from my POV dwm is the way to go. I think that some of dwm's simplifications are worthwhile. For example, I never thought that the 9P support in wmii was worth the downsides of slower operation and so many race conditions. But I disagree with the decision to eliminate run-time configuration files in dwm. Yes, I could edit "config.h". But why should I have to recompile and re-install every time I change a setting? Also, this scheme does not fit in well with multi-user systems. I've written configuration file parsers before. It isn't that tough. Please re-consider this decision. I think that the right direction lies somewhere in the middle ground between wmii and dwm. Thanks, Doug. _______________________________________________ wmii@wmii.de mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
