On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:51:50PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:44:27PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > Should the StyleById patch be applied before 2.6? Please cast > > > your votes here. > > > > > > > Seems that there is no conclusion here. It seems that there is two > > votes for it (me and Mikhael) one vote against (Dominik) and one > > unclear vote (Dan). So I ask for more votes and clarification > > (Dan?). For that I send an other version of the patch (attached). > > I've followed all the advice (I can follow) that I get in this > > thread. In particular, I've followed all the remarks (as I can) of > > Dominik regarding the code. > > > So, Dominik I even hope you revert your vote (very little hope > > ...). > > I don't know about your hope, but the chance that I do is zero. It > is not the right time. >
The reason of my hope is that the new version of the patch take in account the reasons why you reject it. You give 7 arguments. The new patch handle arguments 3, 4 and 6. Moreover, I've worked on argument 5 and style list simplification has been improved. About 1 and 2 I can just say that I do not _think_ that the patch can cause instability. Finally, I do not understand argument 7. But, maybe the most important is that there is 4 votes for the patch (Dan, Mikhael, Olivier and Tim) and one vote against (Dominik). So, I think we should apply the patch. Regards, Olivier -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
