Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> writes: R> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: >> On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: >> >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm >> >> Module name: fvwm >> >> Changes by: domivogt 13/04/14 03:41:48 >> >> None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is >> this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of >> warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of >> GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the >> correct branch point in CVS for starters. > > I'm looking at the main branch.
Yes, CVS isn't quite right. I think it was after 2.6 we had a 2.7 branch created but the current plan is to stop with odd numbered releases that never happen and stay with 2.6. If I knew enough about CVS to remove the 2.7 branch I would. I would not be opposed to creating 2.8 if that's what it takes. -- Dan Espen
