Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> I propose following strategy. I'd like to wait until October, if
> Kris will re-appear till then, everything is fine. If not, we
> need another maintainer for wmii. I won't do the job again,
So you refuse to maintain wmii and there is no visible replacement
maintainer, but you are still directing it's development? Do you
expect this to work?
> because from my POV dwm is the way to go.
I think that some of dwm's simplifications are worthwhile. For example,
I never thought that the 9P support in wmii was worth the downsides of
slower operation and so many race conditions.
But I disagree with the decision to eliminate run-time configuration
files in dwm. Yes, I could edit "config.h". But why should I have to
recompile and re-install every time I change a setting? Also, this
scheme does not fit in well with multi-user systems.
I've written configuration file parsers before. It isn't that tough.
Please re-consider this decision.
I think that the right direction lies somewhere in the middle ground
between wmii and dwm.
Thanks,
Doug.
Received on Mon Sep 11 2006 - 13:33:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:13:36 UTC