Re: [dev] surf release?

From: Martti Kühne <mysatyre_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:25:21 +0200

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <czarkoff_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Martti Kühne said:
>> However upstream is not everyone's taste either, in that configuration
>> changes require recompiling of the respective binary.
>
> Exactly! I have a big patch for surf 0.6; it takes time to adopt these
> changes to current snapshot, and there are better ways to waste that
> time then to cherry-pick the changes.
>
> You may argue that I could follow the development closely and update my
> patch with every commit. But that actually requires even more time, and
> yet more time to build every revision.
>
> My solution is simple - I have a patch against surf package (which is -
> wait for it! - of latest *version*). This way I only have to modify my
> patch with every release. This works perfectly when maintainer indeed
> bumps package version when user-visible feature lands in source tree.
> Of course, this fails miserably when maintainer doesn't grasp the
> concept of version.
>


You raise a valid point there regarding patches. surf is one of the
larger projects in suckless, and porting a patch to HEAD may not be as
trivial as an additional function in, say, a majority of dwm patches,
which usually fail because the patch tool can't fit them into the
right context. Did you release your "big" patch to the public? Is it
that hard to port it to HEAD?

I am not the guy who maintains the surf repository. And it's his
decision and his behind to lift, and I also can't tell you how heavy
that is.

cheers!
mar77i
Received on Mon Jun 01 2015 - 19:25:21 CEST