On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:02:17AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
It's been sent. Presumably it'll be applied soon, or if it's rejected someone will send in a different fix.
I'd suggest some form of auditing, just to be sure that precedences and prerequisites are being taken into account. I'm suggesting that a double check could avoid this sort of things, and avoiding this sort of think would be better for XMonada.
This is the trouble with having two separate repositories for such closely linked code. The theory (I believe) is that xmonad itself won't change so rapidly as the contrib modules, but when it *does* change, then synchronized changes need to be made.
David, please do not read my word as a critique. I'm just thinking about the casual user, possibly a member of the haskell community, who read about xmonad, its solid design, a project headed for it 0.3 release, and, without bothering to subscribe to the mailing list, pulls the darcs source. Excited she starts messing with such nice extensions, such as tabs and combos, but xmonad keeps crashing or doesn't even compile because of such obvious coding mistakes - such as using undeclared functions... I have the patch, we all have. But she doesn't know the hard, chaotic and quick work that is being done down here to get a solid but still powerfully extensible WM. By the way, I'm very supportive of your code: I've spent the last few days just reading and chasing it. I'm far from asking to stop. I'm just suggesting some care with the public repos. We could, you could set up an internal tree, I'd be delighted to work to help with checking, debugging and stabilizing it. Stuff could be merged as it stabilizes. Or, going on this way, just double check the coherence of each changeset. ciao andrea