Hi all --
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:54:07PM -0500, des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Jason Weber <bab...@imonk.com> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
> >> Hi --
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:44:56PM -0800, Jason Weber wrote:
> >>> Screen Edge Avoidance
> >>> ---------------------
> >>> Screen edges now repel proxies. In reasonable situations,
> >>> proxies will never be pushed off screen.
> >>
> >> This sounds like a bug-fix to me? Or is this so in-grained with everything
> >> else. separating this out isn't possible?
> >
> > It probably could be separated out. The current diff is rather large,
> > so it just means sifting through all that to pick out a few changes.
>
> Thomas,
>
> In the past we never blocked module updates,
> even in hard freeze.
I appreciate that -- but given the leap of 2.4.X -> 2.6.X [1] which is proposed
in this feature-freeze, I want to *guarantee* the state of FVWM as a whole;
that includes the core *and* it's modules. I don't wish to come across as
unintentionally anal about this, but since we're close to such a release
(even an RC), I still don't want anything to upset the current balance we
have on FVWM as a whole. This *includes* modules, of course.
None of this is disparaging on the work Jason is doing, of course -- I hope
you appreciate that, Jason?
You might wonder what the point of all this is, and why I am making such a
big deal out of it. Well, it's simple -- I want 2.6.0 out the door ASAP.
It's already a year overdue as far as I am personally concerned, and I've
not really helped push that deadline any closer. But I really *don't* want
anything else, no matter how slight to potentially upset the current
stability we have with FVWM. No matter how well protected modules might be
from the core, etc., in terms of their stability; just having the
possibility with changes that large, to me, don't sit right.
No matter how well tested [2].
> We don't have any regression tests for this module
> and I don't believe it's widely used.
See above. Like FvwmScroll for FvwmSave or instance, it doesn't matter if
they're not well tested, not well used (for values of "well used"), etc.
> PS:
>
> I've started work on xdg-menus.
>
> Found and fixed the bug causing the closedir messages.
I am sorry for not getting back to you sooner, Dan. Expect an email in due
course, but also bear in mind I am rather busy elsewhere at the moment also.
I shall do my best.
-- Thomas Adam
[1] I do mean 2.4.X here -- I know most of us here are used to CVS or 2.5.X
releases, in terms of anything official, we *are* talking of 2.4.X -> 2.6.0.
[2] Yes, there were a few f**ckups at $DAYJOB where I could recount with
ease examples of where this *really* is important to get right. ;)
--
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
