Subject: Gnome support status

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Feb 1999 11:56:55 -0600

Now I'm confused.  Over on the Gnome list they're talking about Fvwm with
Gnome support and Jay (one of them...) is distributing a tarball.  Is this
stuff in CVS?  It needs to be, even if it's on a private branch.  The whole
point of CVS is so that we don't get a bunch of tarballs and odd patches
floating about which confuse the users.

 - J<
--
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-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 27 Feb 1999 14:08:03 -0500

%% Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]> writes:

  jlt> Now I'm confused.  Over on the Gnome list they're talking about
  jlt> Fvwm with Gnome support and Jay (one of them...) is distributing
  jlt> a tarball.  Is this stuff in CVS?

Jay posted some patches to a beta of fvwm that added GNOME support, as I
recall.  I don't think he's posted anything the applies to 2.2 or 2.3.
Certainly it's not in the tree.

  jlt> It needs to be, even if it's on a private branch.  The whole
  jlt> point of CVS is so that we don't get a bunch of tarballs and odd
  jlt> patches floating about which confuse the users.

I agree.  In fact, without seeing the patches, I'd say they should go
into 2.3, not a private branch.  I didn't look at exactly what he'd done
last time, so I can't say how extensive the changes were.

If you are subscribed to the list, maybe you could post a note asking
them to send us the changes if they have them ready for 2.2?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
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-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Matthias Clasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 21:29:21 +0100

> last time, so I can't say how extensive the changes were.

After 2.2, Jay asked on the list for updated patches for layers/
session management, which i provided a bit later. He then posted a
pointer to a tar file of fvwm-2.2+gnome+layers+session to the list
if i remember correctly. 

I will commit my part in this to cvs as soon as I am allowd to do it.
But before I do so, i'd like to ask about the general policy wrt to
cvs commits: Should changes of this size go to a private branch ?
Or is it ok to put them in the main trunk ?

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: [email-masked]
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg
--
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-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:34:54 -0500 (EST)

> Or is it ok to put them in the main trunk ?

I guess it goes on a case-by-case basis.

If it is one of the goals --- and I think that GNOME support is --- for
the next release, then to my mind the main branch is appropriate.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Feb 1999 14:47:48 -0600

>>>>> "MC" == Matthias Clasen <[email-masked]> writes:

MC> I will commit my part in this to cvs as soon as I am allowd to do
MC> it.

And Matthias sent me a username/password pair, which should be installed.

MC> Should changes of this size go to a private branch ? Or is it ok to put
MC> them in the main trunk ?

Well, we're unstable again so I say commit them to the mainline.  That's
the whole point.  If we were farther away from the unstable split we would
have to be more cautious but the purpose of splitting off the stable branch
is so that we can break the mainline.

The only stringent requirement now is that we agree that the functionality
is something we want in there (it is) and, of course, that the commit
message explains what's going on (since we all read the commit messages).
And of course, for good ChangeLog entries.

So let's have it!

 - J<

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 27 Feb 1999 15:56:59 -0500

>> Or is it ok to put them in the main trunk ?

  sr> I guess it goes on a case-by-case basis.

  sr> If it is one of the goals --- and I think that GNOME support is --- for
  sr> the next release, then to my mind the main branch is appropriate.

Right.  I think the deal is this:

  * Bug fixes may be committed at any time (unless we're in code freeze
    for a release) usually without much review (unless you want someone
    else to look at it).

  * New features should be discussed on the list to ensure everyone
    thinks they're "appropriate" (one of the goals of fvwm is to be
    relatively efficient, remember, which means we don't necessarily
    want the kitchen sink).

  * If the new feature is large enough, unstable enough, or not
    targetted at the next release, it should go on a private branch.
    Otherwise, concensus will probably have it installed on the main
    branch.

That's my understanding, anyway.

---

From: Jay Painter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:38:18 -0800 (PST)

Hi there,
  After fvwm-2.2 was released, I updated my GNOME support patch to
fvwm-2.2; I then intigrated it with the session managment + layers patch
really, really late one night (I finished at about 3:00am on a work
night).  I wanted other GNOME people to look at it and see if I had done
anything wrong, so I made a full tarball and posted the URL to
gnome-hackers; it was extreamly popular and got forwarded to
gnome-announce.  It seems there are pleanty of people willing abandon E
and WindowMaker ;)  Anyways, I have gotten a list of bugs I need to fix,
plus I've already ran into one stack smash crash.

  I'm sorry for making a separate distribution instad of a patch; I was so
tired the night I worked on it all the energy I had left went into typing
'make distcheck'.  The dist tarball is at:

http://www.serv.net/~jpaint/download/fvwm-gnome-2.2.tar.gz

  I'll try to type up a e-mail to this list tomorrow of all my pending
issues with implimenting full GNOME support.  I'll definately need help
solving some of them.

Regards,
Jay Painter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Painter -- [email-masked] -- [email-masked] -- [email-masked]
http://www.serv.net/~jpaint/

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Feb 1999 15:53:04 -0600

>>>>> "JP" == Jay Painter <[email-masked]> writes:

JP> It seems there are pleanty of people willing abandon E and WindowMaker
JP> ;)

That's encouraging.  I didn't realize that Miguel was an Fvwm user; we may
have a good shot at getting on tens of thousands of desktops (or perhaps
even more) in Mexico.

JP> I'm sorry for making a separate distribution instad of a patch; I was
JP> so tired the night I worked on it all the energy I had left went into
JP> typing 'make distcheck'. 

No big deal, I was just confused about seeing it forwarded to gnome-list
when I hadn't seen it here.

JP> I'll try to type up a e-mail to this list tomorrow of all my pending
JP> issues with implimenting full GNOME support.  I'll definately need help
JP> solving some of them.

Ahh, good.  Note that Matthias can commit now; I think we should probably
move to get you committing directly to the tree as well.

 - J<