On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:40:50AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > 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.
Nothing on earth can make me agree to adding huge features in feature freeze. > 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. As I said before, I reject making facts now that can never be changed again. The way the style list works has always been a mistake. No matter how much time you spend on optimising the style list code, it will always be a memory leak. This logic is due for replacement, not for expansion. > About 1 and 2 I can just say that I do not _think_ that the > patch can cause instability. It has already consumed much time in pointless arguments that could have been spent stabilising the code. There is a direct relationship between my motivation to work on the remaining problems and the amount of distractions on this list that have nothing to do with it. > Finally, I do not understand argument 7. It's an ad-hoc syntax that *will* be thrown away right when we start thinking. I have many enhancements in mind that have no chance of being implemented with this kind of just-throw-in-a-new- command-whenever-it-seems-to-work-for-the-moment approach. > But, maybe the most important is that there is 4 votes for the > patch (Dan, Mikhael, Olivier and Tim) and one vote against (Dominik). Of course Dan can speak for himself, but according to the mail archive he did neither vote for nor against the patch. Not that I think it matters. > So, I think we should apply the patch. Then take the consequences and abandon the idea of a stable 2.6 release. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- 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]
