Subject: FVWM: Mouse bindings broken in 2.1.7?

From: Teemu Hirsimaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:02:01 +0200 (EET)

I just downloaded 2.1.7 but noticed that some mouse bindings stopped
to work.  I removed everything irrelevant from rc-file and I have only
the following line in my file.

	Mouse 1 A M move

When I have meta key down and press the left button on a window, the
cursor changes into an arrow, but the window does not move when I move
the mouse.  (No, I do not have num-lock on :)  However, it works if I
click on handles or titlebar.  It also works if I click the root
window - the cursor goes into move mode and I can grab a window and
move it.

The problem is not in modifiers, because it does not work with Ctrl or
Hyper either and also the following does not work either.

	Mouse 1 A A move

At least fvwm grabs the click, because the copying from xterm does not
work.  

I may peek a little in the sources when I have time, but I mailed here
because this might be some stupid-user-error. :)

-- 
Teemu Hirsimäki
[email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:30:27 +0100

> because this might be some stupid-user-error. :)

It's a bug that has already been fixed in the CVS tree.

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://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
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: "Chris P. Ross" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:23:13 -0500 (EST)

> It's a bug that has already been fixed in the CVS tree.

  Is someone going to rebundle 2.1.7 at some point, then?  It seems
silly to continue distributing a release (that was just announced,
even) with this significant of a known bug...

            - Chris

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:27:10 +0100

> even) with this significant of a known bug...

I don't mind telling people it's broken. 2.1.7 is a beta.
That explains everything. Betas may be buggy and are not
meant to be used in production. I don't see a reason why
we should make new releases fast becaus of bugs as long
as they don't really break up fvwm completely.

Having a release cycle that is too short might discourage
people to use all these betas. I think 2.1.8 should not
come before next week.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: "Chris P. Ross" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:04:08 -0500 (EST)

> as they don't really break up fvwm completely.

  So what do you recommend people use in production?  I was under the
understanding that all of 2.x was beta.  Is 2.0.46 recommended as
"production", or some sort?

> people to use all these betas. I think 2.1.8 should not

  Agreed, but if you're recommending 1.x as "production", then it
should be argued that that release cycle is way too long...

                         - Chris

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:19:20 +0100

> "production", or some sort?

It is and it is not. It has proven stable for years now,
so it is the recommended release (although not officially).
2.0.46 is not a beta in the same way 2.1.x is. While some older
releases were commonly taken as 'stable', the new 2.1.x series
(and all with an odd number in the second digit) deserves the
label 'beta'. The betas are strictly debugging releases now.

> should be argued that that release cycle is way too long...

It is and we're aware of it. There has never been an official fvwm2
release and the last 2.0.x has been ages ago. That's why we are all
so busy to finally get the 'stable' 2.2. I hope in the future we
can settle with a more healty release cycle. I think 2.4, the next
'stable' release after 2.2 should be ready this year, not five years
in the future as it has been in the past (OK, I'm pushing it a bit).

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:33:53 -0500

> "production", or some sort?

Given the mouse modifier problem,  if you are  not downloading to help
the fvwm testing effort, I would recommend 2.1.4 over 2.1.7.

--
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://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 11 Jan 1999 12:33:55 -0500

%% "Chris P. Ross" <[email-masked]> writes:

  cpr> Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> said:

  >> meant to be used in production.

  cpr>   So what do you recommend people use in production?  I was under
  cpr> the understanding that all of 2.x was beta.  Is 2.0.46
  cpr> recommended as "production", or some sort?

No.  All of 2.x _IS_ beta.  There has never been a "released" 2.x fvwm.

However, 2.1.x is even _more_ beta than the 2.0.x releases :).  We have
changed the development model drastically and are working hard towards a
firm, official 2.2 release of fvwm in the not-to-distant future.  The
2.1.x versions are like Linux 2.1.x kernels: they may break important
features so you should be prepared to back each one out if you need to.

  >> people to use all these betas. I think 2.1.8 should not

  cpr>   Agreed, but if you're recommending 1.x as "production", then it
  cpr> should be argued that that release cycle is way too long...

No question, and exactly this point has been made by many (including me,
more than once) for the last 2 or more years.

That's why we changed the development model and so far it seems to be
working pretty well.  But it is different--hence the new numbering
scheme.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
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].