Hullo, On 24 October 2011 17:28, <des...@verizon.net> wrote: > Harry portobello <harryportobe...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On 22 October 2011 11:23, Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> This has been a while coming since 2.6.0 was released. But I said at the >>> time that since there was no longer ever going to be a split between >>> stable/unstable, and that there was only ever rolling-stable releases, that >>> there was now never any right time to make changes which have an impact. >>> >>> This is one of them. >> >> Is this really the right thing to do? Really? How did you come up with >> this list of depreciated modules to start with? What happens if >> someone with a config theyve had for ages needs to use a module youve >> depreciated? Will you personally have to provide the functions of that >> module in some way? >> >> Can you not just leave these modules alone? > > Deprecating junk is a time honored Fvwm tradition. > > Reducing the size of the code base helps developers. > As it is, Fvwm has grown so large that I can't keep up with > the complexity. > > Anyway, Tom has done the right thing. He made a proposal and > now he's getting feedback.
Maybe. But time honored traditions are grating - when functionality already exists and is removed for no good reason. I like FvwmTaskBar but won't get to use it again - instead I have to use two modules I don't know anything about. There's no thought gone in to this and will force users to learn things they didn't need to before. I am also amazed that mail checking is now left up to the user when it's built in to FvwmTaskBar already! Can these modules not be archived and marked as unmaintained which would still allow users to use them if they chose? Please! More thought needed =) Harry
