Subject: FVWM: fvwm still under development?

From: patrick finerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:20:20 -0600 (MDT)

hi folks,

is fvwm still under active development or have the developers switched 
to another project (such as Enlightenment)? there hasn't been a new
release for almost a year now...

-pjf

-- 
       "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
 Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
	  finger [email-masked] for PGP key
		    http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu
--
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: 19 Apr 1998 14:56:20 -0700

> release for almost a year now...

It's still under active development. I'm actively developing FvwmIconMan, and
will certainly never switch to enlightenment. I believe that there have been
other busy module writers as well.

As far as the fvwm core, I think there is two factors: (1) Chuck Hines has
been pretty busy (the problem with free software is that the people writing it
have to pay bills too), and (2) I think we're getting close to the limit of
what can easily go into the fvwm "kernel." Most of the major changes I've
heard of of basically internal code rewriting things - like fleshing out
fvwmlib, and changing how styles are handled.

There certainly is some potentially cool areas to push fvwm into, like
extensibility, easier/more automated configuration, etc. But those are major
undertakings, and people I've talked to about it haven't really had the energy 
to take it up for real (including myself). 

I see two avenues for cool development: (1) more modules. I that most of the
unexplored potential in fvwm is in the modules (2) somebody (like yourself)
asking "Hey I don't see such and such getting done" and getting inspired to do 
it themselves. That's pretty much the way it free software always seems to
work. It's like a relay race. Some guy get a cool idea, slaps it into code,
maybe gets stuck maintaining the distribution or a few years until he
eventually runs out of insipration. Then someone else comes in and continues
the cycle. 

My personal thing I'd like to see, but don't have the time to do, is make is
so that you can write modules to control the "look and feel," like the
titlebars and menus and such. Gotta write that thesis though. If anyone else
has the urge (and skill) to help, I'd be more inclined to do it.

-- 
 Brady Montz
 [email-masked]

---

From: Nathan Froyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:07:00 -0500

> to take it up for real (including myself).

I think at least integrating the various patches I've seen on the
Internet (Greg Badros's patch for menus and such for one) and making
sure FVWM compiles cleanly with gcc -Wall would be nice. If someone's
willing to send me their patch and a command line for patch (I seem to
have no end of bad luck getting patches applied correctly), I'll start
slapping them on 2.0.46 and making it a little more robust (the autoconf
package cited from the FVWM homepage would be nice, too).

Nathan

---

From: Nathan Froyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:24:58 -0500

Nathan Froyd wrote:

>If someone's

That is, if nobody else wants the job and if Chuck's OK with it. :)

Nathan

---

From: Chris Siebenmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 03:00:26 -0400

Then there's always the question of how much development fvwm2 needs.
I think it would be nice for 2.0.46 plus patches to be declared the
stable version and released for real, dropping out of its pseudo-beta,
but I don't know how many more features the core (as opposed to the
modules) really needs.

 It can be counterproductive to pile feature on feature just to do new
releases; there's nothing wrong with stable old software if it works.

 If there are specific fvwm2 features one wants, one might want to speak
up about them and/or contributed patches to do them.

	- cks

---

From: "Charles Hines" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:55:40 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Froyd <[email-masked]> writes:

>> package cited from the FVWM homepage would be nice, too).

Nathan> That is, if nobody else wants the job and if Chuck's OK with it. :)

Sorry I didn't respond yesterday, but I was out sick.

Please don't put out a patched up 2.0.46.  It causes even more
confusion when people start sending email to the list with problems -
it's hard enough now to get people to say what version they have, let
alone is it patched up version A put out by so and so, or their own
patched up version from the unofficial patches directory or whatever
else.  It's bad enough that we still see fvwm95 questions on the
lists...

I already have a collection of the patches that I believe should go
into 2.0.47 and am putting them togther (slowly).  Some of the patches
are different than the originals posted.  Fvwm *IS* still under
development, admittedly not as rapidly as I would like, and
2.0.47 is almost ready.  Certain things in my life have been taking
even more time than normal over the past couple of months, but it
looks like things will clear up a little after this upcoming weekend
so I should have some more time to get back to working on fvwm and
perhaps get 2.0.47 out before too much longer.

Chuck

--
*******************************************************************************
Charles K. Hines <[email-masked]>
IBM Logic Synthesis Developer [BooleDozer (TM)]
Martial Arts Instructor [Modern Arnis, Presas Style Filipino Martial Arts]

         "Go back to sleep, Chuck.  You're just havin' a nightmare
             -- of course, we ARE still in Hell." (Gary Larson)
*******************************************************************************
--
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].