Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor

From: dtk <dtk_AT_gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:08:05 +0100

Hey cls,

On 12/22/2011 04:57 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 16:36, dtk <dtk_AT_gmx.de> wrote:
>> nope, 32 is aplenty. Thing is, in wmii I create them on demand and name
>> them dynamically (to reflect their purpose), which conveniently groups
>> them as well. I just don't want the tag I do development of project A on
>> to be on tag 5. Today. And on tag 6 is a browser with an interesting
>> article. Today. But tomorrow, I wanna code on project B as well. Where
>> would I put that? :/ It feels just soo static :|
>
> There's also nametag [1], which allows you to rename your tags at
> runtime, and a patch I wrote I could dig up which hides currently
> unused tags.

Yeah, that sounds pretty nice.

Well, you being so patient with me, I might as well get impolite -.-
So, what's the policy here? All future development in patches, so we
don't spoil that fancy 2K SLOC statistic everybody is so fond of? :/
*sceptic*

>> Sounds weird. That would make for one tag per client then, for most of
>> the time I can use only one client (basically) maximised.
>
> In dwm you can view multiple tags at the same time, which pulls all
> clients with that tag into view. (Which is really amazing once you get
> used to it. Other window managers just make me feel really
> constrained.)

yeah, remember that from awesome, rarely used it, felt like a rather
clumsy feature over there (might have been due to my key bindings).

Still think it's a pity you have to loose that grouping of clients into
topics if you need to have several tags per topic. I would like to have
my IDE and a browser with corresponding API on the same tag. Purely for
tidiness reasons :/

>> I think that is the great power of the
>> stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't
>> need to watch them all of the time.
>
> That's why I suggested flextile; it has a 'deck' layout.
>
>> I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'?
>
> Monocle layout?

Yeah, will have to look into that. Is there a screenshot to be seen?
Always associated it with awesome's monocle(?) layout, which was very
inefficient as it comes to screen space, iirc.

>> What if I need tree columns?
>
> I don't know what that means.

^^ I'm sorry. s/tree/three/

thx again
dtk
Received on Sat Dec 24 2011 - 12:08:05 CET