On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:38:08 +0100 (CET) Viktor Griph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ingo Wardinski wrote: > > I'm sure there are profound reasons not to include such features as > > menutranslucency, topborder, inactivefont, round corners , etc. into > > fvwm. Which are these?? > > In most cases the patches have not been submitted to the fvwm-workers > list, and in the cases where they have they mostly lack proper > documentation of the features. Also some patches add stuff without adding > configuration options to control their behaviour. Most of the patches I know, do have an option to control their behaviour, and they shouldn't interfere with anything, unless you explicitly activate them using the config options. There are a few exceptions, so I will review the patches I know of, and probably, submit a list or something like that later. > Appart from that patches require quite some proof reading and some patches > tend to be relatively large. I've personally checked on the > menu translucency patch a while back, and I think it is mature enough for > inclusion. But it lacks documentation, and still has to be checked against > the latest CVS to see that there haven't come any new issues since I last > checked and updated the patch. This is in Gentoo since the patch was created, and it continues to work ok with both the official releases and the cvs builds. I just checked it, and the patch in my fvwm cvs ebuild for gentoo, and the official tree, are different. The .21 patch in Gentoo, doesn't apply on CVS. The patch I host in my patchset do work. I think it was modified by someone in this list, but I don't really remember. (It wasn't me, that's for sure a good thing). I attach it to this mail in case you need it. > I don't know of the state of any other patches. I know that there are some > patches that have been sent to the workers list, wich I intend to take a > look at once I get a little more time. But I believe that most of the > patches that are included with the Gentoo live ebuild have never been > submitted to the workers list. I maintain that patchset and the unofficial .23, .24, .25 and cvs ebuilds that can be found in the devnull overlay, and in bugs.gentoo.org. Most of the patches there are from here: http://abdn.ac.uk/~u15dm4/fvwm/ There's also the translucency one, and besides that, there are a couple more that I wouldn't worry about, since they are deliberately hackhish even to my inexpert eye (and they provide no config option, they are irreversible). Besides that, there's also the patch from Thomas Adam to change the colors for each border separately. But I modified that patch, so, it is not the same patch from Thomas, and no one should bother him about that patch I modified. The whole patchset can be found at: http://jesgue.homelinux.org/fvwm-files/fvwm-patchset-20070901.tar.bz2 I don't really use these patches. The only thing I can say is that they apply cleanly. Those patches were taken originally from the link above. But some of them have been heavily modified by me (again, AKA not-a-good-thing) on successive updates because they wouldn't apply. Right now, the original author seems to provide updated patches on his page. I don't know if these are reworked, or if they are taken from my patchset (I highly doubt it). In the next few days I will try to compare them and make some checks. The real problem now to start with, is that there are lots of patches, from lots of sources. The first thing if we want to include anything into fvwm, is to identify what of them are realistic candidates, and which ones are cleaner and tidier. That's just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. -- Jesús Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
