So what you're saying is that the time it took to develop has something to do with how stable it is ?

FYI

http://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2011/04/....html#comments

No. I am trying to say that it isn't fair to call something like FVWM-stable "bleeding-edge" software. I'm not looking for Pat to include it. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just saying it's not "bleeding-edge" software.

Well, considering how quickly 4^H2.6.1 was released, I think it's at least fair to say that 4^H2.6.0 was bleeding edge. If we see 4^H2.6.2 within a month, it's probably fair to say that about 4^H2.6.1, too.

4.6.1?
Is this KDE we're talking about?

Indeed. Version number brain-fart.

Make that fvwm-2.4.20 -> 2.6.0 -> 2.6.1 instead.

My reply was a subtle dig at KDE which many of us consider just as bleeding-edge.

Yes, 2.6.1 was unfortunately quick, but that was entirely my fault.

And you may well see 2.6.2 out before a month has ended, but that'll be because of development features, not necessarily f*ck-ups from anything 2.6.1 related.

-- Thomas Adam

To me bleeding edge is something that was released in the last few weeks. I usually don't install things as soon as they come out, especially major version changes. From personal experience, it's a bad idea. As you can see here as soon as major version is release there is a small avalanche of releases in short succession to fix bugs that were not caught by the people running the unstable branch, but are now caught by people running the stable branch. Then there's me, who considers the stable branch stable when the version numbers haven't changed in a while.

1 members found this post helpful.

ruario here's the output:
juan@juan:~$ /sbin/lspci | grep -i vga
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)

In slackware-current, it is fvwm-2.4.20 from 2006.

(I still use fvwm-1.24 even in slackware-current because for some strange reason the old .fvwmrc file stopped working in the move to fvwm2 and I didn't want to rewrite it so I didn't move on. Hmm, I guess it was some time ago, it seems that slackware-3.4 was the last version to have fvwm-1.24 and slackware-3.5 already had fvwm2.)

Off-topic, but to clarify something about the years, fvwm 2.4.20 is five years old, but the 2.5 series was begun shortly after 2.4.0 was released. The 2.4 series began in 2001 and the 2.5 series (which is now 2.6) was begun in January 2002. So 2.6 has been in development for 9 years and 3 months, not five years. But, indeed, it doesn't matter how long something's been in development. The point is that it's freshly released code and there's more than one issue involved in getting it ready for Slack. I'll admit I asked for it to be included, too, but that's just because I'd kick myself if it could have been and wasn't. But it's just too late in the cycle for too big a change.

Hm. I guess I wandered back on topic.

1 members found this post helpful.

I thought that new development features would be going into the 2.7.x branch... no?

1 members found this post helpful.

*Trying to be a peace-maker*

How about a package living long time into /testing?

To be honest, these guys need testing, right?

Of course, exposing this new versions to users, help them to consolidate their application, right?

Is this driver _better_ for anyone than 2.14.0? Speak now, because it is about to be reverted. I have not heard anything positive so far.