Ethan Raynor <ethanrayno...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote: >> Yes, a number of people wanted git. >> No point in arguing against that. >> It's accepted that git out does CVS in functionality. > > But I can't recall when on the fvwm lists the pros and cons of moving. > I know that github is considered the place to be - but I've also had > some nasty encounters with it when things go bad - and other places > like bitbucket have greater resiliance - not to mention guaranteed > backups!!
Sounds to me like you are not subscribed to fvwm-workers. If you care about things like the repository, you should subscribe. >> You've ruined your point about the config change by bringing in >> a bunch of irrelevant stuff. > > Not exactly, Dan. The point i'm putting across to thomas and others is > the perception of the changes - they come out of no where with any > warning. That can be a bad thing Nope. Read the various TODO files. Major parser change has been on the list a long time. In fact Thomas was not the major maintainer at the time. I'd like to see improvements in the way parsing is done inside fvwm. There is so much parsing code that does the same basic thing. A table driven approach would be a big improvement. If the command syntax has to change to get there, I'd like to understand why. -- Dan Espen
