Re: [trinity-devel] Resolving the TWin/KWin Fork Issue

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/20/2012 01:00 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: Martin, I do apologize for the kwin/kde grouping. I did not recognize where the boundary line was drawn between kwin and kde. As for the thrust of my original response -- I agree with you, if we can avoid duplication of effort and prevent creating inconsistencies in twin/kwin -- it makes sense. The only sticking point there would arise if there was functionality that twin needed that kwin did not. In that case, the only option would be to have separate patches to kwin to provided needed twin functionality (if that is maintainable) or continue with the fork. I have a practical question. If twin and kwin were to merge, how would that impact the current GIT hosting of the code? Would the twin code be included in the TDE GIT tree as a submodule our would the TDE git tree just receive updates from kwin as needed? Thoughts? - -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.