Decide how to move forward with the python version about autorandr

[bcremer]

1+ for only maintaining one version.

I tend to favour the python version if it stays a single, self contained file.

I don't like to mess around with easy_install, pip or my distributions package manager to get this script running.

[phillipberndt]

I'm not a fan of superflous complexity, so yes, it will stay a single file. With your feedback, @tachylatus comment that he'd continue to contribute to a Python version in #8 and the momentum it gained with @RasmusWL's latest additions, I believe it's best to stick to the Python script.

Here's what I'm going to do, unless someone objects here:

• Move the bash autorandr into a legacy branch in this repository (both aur and portage support branches, so packaging that version shouldn't be a problem) and update the pull-request in the upstream repository to pull from that branch accordingly
• Adjust the Makefile to install autorandr.py as autorandr
• But do not remove the extension from autorandr.py to allow easy merging/separation of the different versions and to alert maintainers to the change (for example, this ebuild will break).
• Update the Readme, of course
• I'll only write new code for the Python version
• I'll continue to fix bugs as issue reports come in for the Bash version
• I'll continue to pull merge requests for the legacy branch
• If ever a incompatibility should be introduced, I'll add a warning to the bash version
• If someone does not wish to go with the Python version and would maintain the Bash version himself, I'll replace the contents of the legacy branch with a message pointing to the new location / add a link to the master branch'es README on request, and will completely remove that branch after some time

[bcremer]

Sounds all reasonable to me. +1

[phillipberndt]

Since no one complained, I went through with this.

[sparr]

the bash version obviously needs maintenance as well.

why?