Subject: FVWM: code base merge for fvwm95?

From: Robert Nicholson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:04:00 -0400 (EDT)

I'm guessing that the 95 hack is so much of a hack that to integrate
the sources back into the main distribution would upset the purists?

I'm new to fvwm95 and I was just curious about the fvwm position on
it?

I've already noticed that fvwm95 seems to be out on it's own so to
speak and I'm wondering what's the best to commit time and resources
to. I do like the way fvwm2's .fvwm2rc file is split with the Read's
which don't appear to have made their way into the fvwm95 release I'm
currently using.

So, will these two source trees be disjoint?

Why for instance can't the 95 hack be a module of fvwm2?

Go easy on me :-)
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Brady Montz <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:42:35 -0700

> Why for instance can't the 95 hack be a module of fvwm2?

There are three problems: 

1. I'm not sure how well the current module interface
is suited for a module that is resposible for drawing all of the decorations
and whatnot. 

2. fvwm95 is different from fvwm in more ways that just new titlebars. For
example, they have been busy creating new types of packets to send to modules,
and so has fvwm (SendToModule is only in fvwm for example, and until recently,
the mini-icon packet was only in fvwm95). Also, the style flags are diverging.

3. When you have two groups of people working on software, and they aren't
forced by some higher power to cooperate, it seems inevitable that they will
continue to diverge.

One additional problem:

4. Fvwm is a free piece of software developed by a lot of people. As such
there is no "fvwm position" on just about anything. Sitting around and waiting
for one is rarely productive. The single best way to get a "position" to form
is to put fingers to keyboard, write the code, and then hope that everybody
else says "cool." I'd recommend getting in touch with Chuck Hines, before
starting anything major, and also I'd wait until after the official release 
is made and the things stabilize. 

I think that merging fvwm95 and fvwm together again (note that I didn't say
merge fvwm95 back into fvwm. It's changed enough to be considered a seperate
project, if in its infancy) will certainly require rewriting a large fraction
of fvwm (and fvwm95). As such, nobody's going to be much happy about it on
either side unless it is accompanied by clear improvements. For example, if
a better way is found to interface modules to fvwm that allows for a new
family of neato modules to be written (the options I see: and embedded
language like guile or python, dynamic linking, or some sort of
rpc). Otherwise, all you've succeeded in doing is tearing your house down and
living in a tent in the back yard for a few months so that you can rebuild
your house with a new type of flooring. 

I think the best way to proceed is to get a clear answer to the question:
What improvements need to be made to fvwm which would make it all around
cooler, smaller, faster, and/or better, from which adding a module to make
it look and feel like windows 95 would just fall out?

-- 
 Brady Montz
 [email-masked]

---

From: Patrice Fortier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:00:26 +0200 (MET DST)

> it look and feel like windows 95 would just fall out?

Well, maybe I'm wrong but I think the only thing which makes fvwm95
interesting for the standard-user is the Win95-look.
 As most of the users didn't even looked at the .fvwm2rc95 (or just
added a couple of menu entries), if we can emulate the Win95 look just
like fvwm95, we can can almost consider that the merging is done :).
I didn't look at the -solid option of andrew's titlebar patch, but as
mini-icons will (should :)) be included in the next fvwm2 beta
version...

Just my 10 centimes...

Lokh.

---

From: Marko Macek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:03:27 +0200

Hi!

> interesting for the standard-user is the Win95-look.

There is also the fixed window sizing code, menu positioning, etc.
Also, some Mouse Warping has been eliminated (all of it I hope).

Mark

---

From: [email-masked] (Albrecht Kadlec)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 19:32:36 +0200

>>>>> Marko Macek writes:

M> Hi!
> interesting for the standard-user is the Win95-look.

M> There is also the fixed window sizing code, menu positioning, etc.
M> Also, some Mouse Warping has been eliminated (all of it I hope).

I've started the progress of making it an option in fvwm2, too.
That's a look and feel question like clicktofocus/focusfollowsmouse &
sloppyfocus.

Fvwm2 should be able to do both, and it's no big hassle.

albrecht
-- 
Life is a fatal disease, the end result is always death.

---

From: [email-masked] (Albrecht Kadlec)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 19:51:49 +0200

>>>>> Albrecht Kadlec writes:

M> Hi!

A> I've started the progress of making it an option in fvwm2, too.
A> That's a look and feel question like clicktofocus/focusfollowsmouse &
A> sloppyfocus.

actually I was referring to Mouse Warping only.
But there's also work on menu positioning, etc.

It's not too far away from fvwm95.

A> Fvwm2 should be able to do both, and it's no big hassle.

A> albrecht
-- 
Your reasons were so obvious as my friends have qualified
  I only laughed away your tears, but even jesters cry -- Marillion
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Brady Montz <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Oct 1996 12:43:58 -0700

> mini-icons will (should :)) be included in the next fvwm2 beta

It's not just what makes fvwm95 interesting to the user. It's also what makes
it interesting to the people writing the code for it. Just adding the win95
stuff to fvwm is not by itself a guarantee that they are going to stop
developing fvwm95. As is pointed out by others in this thread, the two window
managers are diverging in more ways than just titlebars and such.

Also, not everybody wants to see more and more code getting added to fvwm.