Subject: 2.2.2 and multibyte

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:03:27 -0600

I'm still hoping someone else takes the effort to make a 2.2.x release
with the multibyte patch applied. Do you want to make one by any chance, Dan?

Bye

Dominik ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:52:52 -0400

> with the multibyte patch applied. Do you want to make one by any chance, Dan?

Hmm...

I guess the issues are:

1.  I understand we have a 2.2 patch, but nothing for 2.3.x.  Do we
have a 2.3.x plan?

2.  If the patch applies cleanly to 2.2.2, I don't see a reason to
hold it for 2.2.3.

3. I don't think we have the means to test it with multi-byte data?
Is it good enough to just verify that it doesn't break anything?

4. I think  the patch  submitter  made some comment about  "fontlists"
being the "right" way to solve this.  This goes right  over my head (I
don't  know anything about  fontlists  or how  this applies).  But  if
there's a  right way and a  wrong way, I want  to do it the right way.
Since I don't understand this issue, I may have this compeletely mixed
up, but I think I need to read up on  Internationalization if there is
an issue here.

Depending on how these issues work out, I guess I could be convinced.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:03:10 -0600

> 1.  I understand we have a 2.2 patch, but nothing for 2.3.x.  Do we

It needs some major cleanup. We don't want to litter the code with
dozens of ifdefs, so a cleaner way is needed. To be honest I don't
believe we'll find a volunteer for that task (certainly not me).
So having a 2.2.x with the multibyte patch is better that having
no version at all.

> 2.  If the patch applies cleanly to 2.2.2, I don't see a reason to

Neither do I, but I thought we'd create a separate version with that
patch. Anyway, I don't care if the there are one or two versions.

> Is it good enough to just verify that it doesn't break anything?

I don't know.

> up, but I think I need to read up on  Internationalization if there is

I dont't understand it either, so I can't help here. My idea was we
simply release a one shot fvwm version with multibyte support now and
hope that one day someone volunteer to integrate that into the CVS
source in a clean way.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:01:02 -0400 (EDT)

Hullo,

I wonder if putting this into the "stable" 2.2 series is the way to go. 
My understanding is that 2.2 would be strictly for bug fixes, and not be
introducing new features.  

I would be reluctant to go dumping lightly-tested patches into 2.2.

How about just putting the patch -- in diff form -- up on the web page? 
The problem with putting it into a 2.2 release is that it would imply some
level of commitment from us.  I wouldn't want to promise anything about
dead-end code.  A diff promises less.

I haven't checked the patch in question --- it could be tiny and obviously
correct for all I know.  But it also seems that there is a real question
about the best way to do this, and we have little or no expertise in
internationalization.  [I would be pleased to be proved wrong on this last
point.  I personally think I18N is a good thing.]

> believe we'll find a volunteer for that task (certainly not me).

Didn't Matthias post some nice-looking macros to hide this ugliness?  

I think there was also some discussion in the same thread about the fact
that isspace()  and friends are documented as "int isspace( int )", but
are more often implemented as macros that use the argument as an index
into a table.

This would be nice to clean up at the same time.  The problem is that on
machines using signed characters, code that looks like

	char c;
	...
	if ((isspace(c)) ...

will get into trouble when characters > 127 get sign-extended.

I suppose the fix is to cast the argument to "unsigned char"?

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

If mashed potatoes were security guards, they wouldn't get much done.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 1999 11:03:09 -0500

>>>>> "SR" == Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:

SR> I wonder if putting this into the "stable" 2.2 series is the way to go.
SR> My understanding is that 2.2 would be strictly for bug fixes, and not
SR> be introducing new features.

I have to agree, but I'm not sure that's what we're talking about.

SR> How about just putting the patch -- in diff form -- up on the web page?
SR> The problem with putting it into a 2.2 release is that it would imply
SR> some level of commitment from us.

I think that at most we should cut a one-off 2.2.2-multibyte release and
make it plain that volunteers are needed to make sure it is properly
supported in later versions.  At that point we can ignore it until
volunteers appear to help us integrate it.

I should note that I will be away until Monday night starting in about two
hours (two, count 'em two, weddings this weekend), so if we're going to do
2.2.2 this weekend then it needs to happen relatively soon to give me time
to update the web pages and such.

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:55:47 -0400

> volunteers appear to help us integrate it.

So far, I'm convinced that this is work should  be in the 2.3.x branch
first.  Whether it appears in 2.2.x before 2.4 remains to be seen.

> to update the web pages and such.

I can't do  makedist at home, my  machine is way  to slow.  Besides, I
want to  take  this slow and hopefully   get  it right.   Have a  nice
weekend.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:35:00 +0200

> > volunteers appear to help us integrate it.

Yup, I think that's better than a simple diff. Think of the release as
a service for people who don't like to apply diffs themselves.

> first.  Whether it appears in 2.2.x before 2.4 remains to be seen.

Well, I simply don't believe we'll find anyone willing to make the necessary
changes to the patch in the near future, but I'd like to see some multibyte
release to encourage people to help with keeping it up to date. I don't want
to see the patch in its 'ifdef' form in the development source. There's too
much Kruscht (pronounced 'kroosht' as we say in Germany) in the code already
and my ultimate goal is to make it mostly modular.

> I can't do  makedist at home, my  machine is way  to slow.

Is it *this* bad? I think on my old machine it took half an hour (133 MHz
CPU, 32MB). :-)

> Besides, I want to  take  this slow and hopefully   get  it right.

Thanks to 'make distcheck' and the step-by-step description in
docs/DEVELOPERS there is nothing much you can do wrong. Even I was
able to make twenty-odd tarballs without a problem (well, except once).
That doesn't mean I want you to get a hurry on it.

> Have a  nice weekend.

Same to you.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
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]