XFWM: Hide titlebar when maximized

[Marr]

On Wednesday 14 November 2012 12:00:18 Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Hi,

Hi, Olivier. Thanks for responding.

> Well, anyways, opening a new bug and posting the patch there is the
> only way to move forward. Hard to discuss the quality of a patch
> without seeing it.

Agree completely.  I was waiting (for almost 3 weeks now) for a reply to this 
post of mine:

   http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/2012-October/030049.html

> From the description in the original post, it looks
> like a quick hack and not suitable for inclusion upstream.

I'm assuming that this was directed at the other guy's (Srdjan Markovic's)
suggestion. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

> As for adding new options, I understand that most user fail to
> understand why adding new options is a bad things, generally speaking.
> 
> But what may seem at first thought as a simple, tiny change can
> quickly turn into a maintenance burden. And that burden is for me,
> getting worse as time is always an issue.

I understand and respect that, as I hope I'd already made clear in my original 
post. It was unclear to me if this part of your reply was directed at me or at 
Srdjan (probably at both!).

> The more options, the more code paths, and the less manageable the code
> becomes.
> 
> Users come and go, the core remains, and then it's up to me (as a
> maintainer) to deal with it. So unless you come up and sign for a
> lifetime agreement to maintain your proposed patches for any
> forseeable future, I reserve the right to decide what's goes in and
> what's not.

Again, no disagreement here. My change and patch is considerably simpler than 
what I expect would be in Srdjan's.

> As a general comment, if xfce/xfwm4 is not for you, well, sorry, I
> appreciate your comments but I don't have time or inclination to
> accept all patches and implement all features people may think of.

I don't think anyone is asking for that, certainly not myself.

> One
> of the Xfce core goals is to keep things simple, a difficult balance
> between useful features and bloat...

"Bloat" being something which is always open for different interpretations. But 
as I hope I'd made clear in my first post, I fully realize that the choice is 
yours, not mine.

> But again, back to the topic, hard to discuss without seeing the
> patch. At first sight, it looks like maximization without borders, ie
> a lesser fullscreen of some sort. So please, first convince me that
> fullscreen is not what you want, prove me that an undecorated window
> can be unmaximized easily, that it works with all different types of
> windows, show me that it works with all possible existing options
> (maximization already has a decoration option, it should work in both
> case), then maybe, just maybe I'll consider the feature, assuming the
> code is correct.

This is clearly directed at Srdjan. Maybe you'll have similar comments about 
my patch too, though. :^)

I think part of the core of the issue is that you're (quite reasonably) 
waiting for a patch and I'm waiting for a reply to that "Patch Submission 
Guidelines" post of mine (URL above) before I thought it prudent to submit a 
patch. Stalemate! :^)

Frankly, I was also hoping for some discussion about my proposed change before 
patching it, but when I first raised the question back in March, I 
(disappointingly) got no replies to this post:

   http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce/2012-March/030021.html

> All this belongs to bugzilla, as I said already.

Since this probably applies to both Srdjan and myself, I'll forge ahead and 
submit the patch. It may take me a day or two to do so, though.

> Thank for listening,

Same to you. :^)

On Tuesday 13 November 2012 16:02:29 Maximilien Noal wrote:
> On 13/11/2012 21:36, Marr wrote:
> > I just really wish that Xfce was more welcoming of folks with alternate
> > needs, especially those who are willing to invest the effort to provide
> > a patch.
> 
> Well, I'm not a Xfce dev, but I think the Xfce devs are very open to ideas
> : - Thunar has tabs since v1.5.1, a feature that was asked for multiple
> times by some.
> - support for systemd for xfce4-session, and some support for tiling in
> xfwm4, were both external patchs which were accepted upstream once
> polishing was done.
> - I'm sure there are other exemples I'm not aware of.

Hi Maximilien,

Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate that there are many areas where 
they are open to ideas. I hope I didn't appear to be "painting with too broad 
a brush" in my comments. I don't want to sound like a complainer. 
I'm making the effort to contribute.

Actually, I also posted about a bug in Orage Clock and a dead URL on the Wiki, 
in 2 separate emails, almost 3 weeks ago and got no replies to either of those 
emails either. Disappointing, to be sure, especially since I spent a couple of 
hours trying to debug the Orage Clock code and had some more input about that. 
But it seems there's nobody out there to talk to, which mystifies me. Maybe 
that has to be initiated via Bugzilla too, but I thought it would be nice to 
hash it out in emails on the list first. But I'm adaptable to whatever the 
policy might be.

> Do not loose hope. ;-)

I haven't yet, but Fluxbox beckons strongly. ;^)

On Wednesday 14 November 2012 15:05:33 Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Hi Srdjan,
> Sorry, I was mostly replying the all thread (people complaining I don't
> approve every possible feature), not everything I wrote was intended for
> you specifically :-)

That seems directed at me, so I'll reply. I don't think I'm complaining that 
you "don't approve every possible feature". If it came off that way, then I 
apologize. The only thing I think I'm truly complaining about is the lack of 
feedback on these mailing lists. It feels like an echo chamber at times. In 
other words, where I'd hoped that you (Olivier) and/or some of the current 
core developers would weigh in on something, there was often nothing but 
silence. I would _strongly_ prefer to be a helper rather than a complainer. 
:^)

Regards,
Bill Marr