On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:00:16AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:36:43AM +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 05:21:22PM +0100, Uwe Pross wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > On 16 Jan 2004 at 14:58:58 +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > > > > > > Use > > > > > > > > fprintf(stderr,"*** FVWM Bell: Abort function %s\n", action); > > > > > > I got: > > > > > > *** FVWM Bell: functions.c line 987 [MarkWindowAsActiveFunc] *** > > > > > > which comes from FvwmEvent. So I guess it is my fault :-\ > > > > > > > I do not think that it is your fault :o) > > > > If you use my version of FVWM you never get these beeps (and the > > function will be executed). But, for some reasons dominik does not > > want that your setup work. > > Would you *please* stop spreading these rumours? I really don't > understand why you have to provoke this argument again.
I do not understand your position on the subject! Note that I am not alone. Simply re-read the last thread on the subject. > And it's > useless too, since if we keep haggling over features that won't be > implemented in 2.6 anyway, we will never get it done, and new > features will never be written. Instead of focusing on these > discussions > >- which stop me from doing any fvwm work for one to > two months every time - It seems the same happen to me ... > how about doing some work towards the > release together instead? > How can I work on FVWM as I *cannot* use the current cvs? Your are the FVWM maintainer, one of the main developer (really I worked a lot on the 2.5.x series) strongly think that we should do something about a given subject. But you do not care and you reject any compromise. For me there is a problem here. 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]
