
droundy:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:12:06PM -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
Patches to the core are expected to reach a higher standard of assurance than patches to the contrib modules. This is to ensure we retain the stability for the core feature set.
I would hope people agree that this policy has helped contribute to robustness and reliability of the core system over several releases now.
That's a good policy, unfortunately inconsistently enforced, which is what causes the trouble. see e.g. a patch which apparently went into core without review
Thu Dec 27 00:03:56 PST 2007 Spencer Janssen
* Broadcast button events to all layouts, fix for issue #111 which fixed no bugs (so far as anyone can tell) and introduced new bugs, but was never rolled back, because sjanssen felt that it was *morally* right, in spite of its causing regressions.
I'm more than happy to consider any patches that fix regressions, close bugs, or enable new features. Particularly if they come with risk/benefit summaries, tests, and are written to inspire confidence in the code.
If David and/or Joachim would like to collaborate to come up with a solution that satisifies all parties to #111, I'm happy to look at it!
See Andreas' patch from February 23
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/xmonad/2008-February/004860.html
the problem is already solved, it's just that noone looked at it.
I've attached a polished version of this. Can you and Joachim confirm that this fixes the regressions described, and could close #111 ? -- Don