On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:42:58AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Martin Cermak <marti...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu 2020-09-03 09:49 , Dominik Vogt wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > >> > Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be > >> > installed. > >> > >> Um, can we call that fvwm-3.0.0 instead of fvwm3-1.0.0 please? > >> Renaming the project because of a new major version was already a > >> mistake for fvwm-2.0.0. No reason to repeat it now. > > > > ( I was just thinking of creating a brand new package for fedora > > providing /usr/bin/fvwm3 able to coexist with /usr/bin/fvwm2 from > > the existing package. Might this make sense from the user > > perspective? Not sure ... ) > > Not sure how Thomas feels. > Fvwm3 was supposed to be largely incompatible with Fvwm2 hence the name > change. That hasn't occurred yet.
It's a tricky one. Right now, things have not diverged because I haven't implemented those changes. I'd always viewed Fvwm3 as being a departure from Fvwm2 -- and hence any association with it at the moment as being equivalent is just because it's lacking any breaking changes. It's also an easier transition for any one wishing to try Fvwm3 who's previously used Fvwm2. That's one of the reasons why I went with version 1.0.0 -- Fvwm3 is going to be separate from Fvwm2 over time, in that I'm not expecting to maintain compatibility, and I wouldn't therefore want to mislead users with a false version number. There may well be some overlap with Fvwm2 in terms of unchanged file names (fvwm-config springs to mind), although I think for the most part Fvwm2 and Fvwm3 can co-exist. I'll try and make the distinction better in future releases, so that it's easier for package maintainers to allow Fvwm2 and Fvwm3 to coexist. Kindly, Thomas
