On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 01:40:33PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote: > On 18 August 2014 12:44, Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote: > > Is this perhaps not clear enough? I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this > > groundwork is really important before we can move forward. Unless there's > > anyone else who wishes to help out with this---which would mean > > understanding a fair amount of fvwm internals at this point, etc., I am not > > sure what else to suggest you can do for now. > > I'm interested in mvwm specifically as i've already tried to port your > patches to fvwm already without success.
Fair enough. If I understand Thomas right, he considers the patches you're interested in as purely experimental, with the long term goal to support it in a clean way. However, the fvwm sources are a real mess at the moment, and we need to focus on cleaning that up first, before we can start adding new features in a new, clean way. > i'm worried this is turning into an 'exclusive club' at the moment. As long as I have any voice here, fvwm and any attempts to rewrite its code base will never be "exclusive". :-) > what's the contribution path to 'outsiders' like me? > the roadmap (in the TODO) lists quite boring features - is this all > theres going to be? The TODO is just the foundation of the new project. It lists a lot of very important infrastructure changes that are actually very un-sexy for users. > have you (and others) got enough experience with fvwm to carry this > off? Um, I think, if *anybody* has the expertise, it's me. ;-) Although I had taken a break for some years, I've been fvwm's most active maintainer and developer. > - or do you need others to help? Yes. I do not believe in private creations of single authors. At the moment, help would equal taking an active part in the ongoing discussions. I'm afraid that we don't have any cool features that we could ask people to implement at the moment, but only "boring" things about technical issues. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
