| 1 |
On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:13:07 +0200 foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| > Also of note, if upstream rejects your |
| 3 |
| > patch, you'll end up maintaining it for life, updating as often as |
| 4 |
| > upstream moves a few things in their own menu code. |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| That's why the patch to the WM code should be minimal and it should |
| 7 |
| re-use as much available code as possible. But I assume most WM's will |
| 8 |
| actually be positive towards moving to the xdg spec and see it as an |
| 9 |
| overall improvement as well. I don't think these patches will get |
| 10 |
| rejected. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The Fluxbox people are basically saying they're only interested if it |
| 13 |
doesn't introduce another major dependency. One of the ideas behind the |
| 14 |
lightweight WMs is that they don't require everything-plus-kitchen-sink. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh, Gentoo XMLcracy Member G03X276 |
| 18 |
(Sparc, MIPS, Vim, si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes) |
| 19 |
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 20 |
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives