Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:04:58 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-wm/fluxbox Makefile Message-ID: <20040811190458.GB96458@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <opsckwg0d79aq2h7@mezz> References: <200408091253.i79CrT8k058076@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040811104830.GA709@lame.novel.ru> <opsckwg0d79aq2h7@mezz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (08.11.2004 @ 1335 PST): Jeremy Messenger said, in 1.4K: << > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:48:30 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy > <bogorodskiy@inbox.ru> wrote: > > > Jeremy wrote: > > > >>mezz 2004-08-09 12:53:29 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD ports repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> x11-wm/fluxbox Makefile > >> Log: > >> fluxbox-devel will merging into fluxbox sometime later when 1.0 is > >>released, > >> so I shall take the maintainership. > > > >I think that fluxbox 0.1 should be kept in ports tree when 1.0 will be > >released, becouse I know really many people who don't like the way in > >which fluxbox-devel is developing, or maybe like the old style tabs, > >etc. So, I think when 0.1 will be released, it should be handled in a > >such way: > > > > fluxbox -> fluxbox01 > > fluxbox-devel -> fluxbox > > I don't care, I am not going to keep the old Fluxbox. Whomever want to > stick with the old Fluxbox, then he/she will _have_ to agree to maintain > this port and submit it to PR for the repo copy request. I see no point to > keep the old, because it's very unmaintain by the developers. > > The old style tab will be back in as optional that can be switch to new > and old style by user's choice. This is what I have heard few weeks ago, > but I don't know if it will happen for real. > > BTW: Please don't drop the CC, I rather to see this dicsuss to be open to > everyone. >> end of "Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-wm/fluxbox Makefile" from Jeremy Messenger << Anybody who wants the old fluxbox code base can check out the x11-wm/fluxbox code as it (will have) stood the day before it (will have been) was overwritten by x11-wm/fluxbox-devel. There would be many, many, MANY more ports were this type of request honoured more often than it already is. I think that Mezz's proposed solution is the right solution in this situation. And FWIW, seeing as how the old fluxbox will never get another update, I really don't think that x11-wm/fluxbox should be kept in the tree any longer; I think that x11-wm/fluxbox-devel should overwrite x11-wm/fluxbox immediately. </can of worms> # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org adamw@vectors.cx || adamw@gnome.org http://www.vectors.cx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040811190458.GB96458>