Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:09:45 +0100

On 24 December 2011 12:08, dtk <> wrote:
> 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*

Hah. :) We fold in popular patches, slowly, so dwm doesn't become all
bloated and unstable. My personal view is that if we take our time we
can reduce each feature to its essential parts before adding another,
instead of just adding all the features at once and suddenly you have
huge amounts of code and it takes ages to pare it all down again.

This happened when we added a bunch of patches to dmenu all at the
same time; there were so many bugs generated as a result, mostly
patch-incompatibility. So while I think we *should* fold in some more
patches, and I don't really care about the SLOC limit, if we do we
ought to do it slowly, so we can keep on top of it.

A number of patches will remain separate though, since they are
configuration options, such as layouts and so on. That's fine, since
they can just be added to your config.h without changing dwm.c itself.
Things like nametag are worth considering, though.

> 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.

I'm not sure a screenshot is necessary. It would just be a fullscreen
window. :p If you hide the status bar it's honestly *just* the window.

> > > What if I need tree columns?
> >
> > I don't know what that means.
> ^^ I'm sorry. s/tree/three/

Ah! col layout [1]? ;)


Received on Sat Dec 24 2011 - 13:09:45 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Dec 24 2011 - 13:12:03 CET