Devin Mullins wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:57:31AM -0400, Braden Shepherdson wrote:
I'm not going to become the next arossato if the consensus goes against using PlainConfig. I think it's a good idea, but I respect the views of the other devs, and if this isn't a direction we want to go in, I won't storm off. I'm just of the opinion that this is a good idea, and I want to see it happen.
I see no reason why you can't develop in in contrib, now, and move it over when ready and/or agreed upon. Was there push back on that?
Similarly, would there be push back if I developed NewConfig (now with monads! thanks gwern) in contrib? Perhaps we need a "selection of the fittest" approach to improving config. (Also, now, I'm just curious.)
They certainly don't hurt as contrib modules. I'll probably convert PlainConfig into such a module. That leaves package maintainers free to use one or the other, though I don't think we really want many different xmonad packages running around. On the other hand, the two don't really solve the same problem. PlainConfig doesn't require GHC, while NewConfig (a more descriptive name might be a good thing?) is an alternative to xmonad.hs files. Braden Shepherdson shepheb