Re: [dev] [dmenu] [PATCHES 1-5] Changes and cleanup

From: Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:28:36 +0100

On 23 December 2014 at 01:10, Eric Pruitt <eric.pruitt_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:40:59PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
>> PATCH 4: As already discussed style(9) is the reference for future code
>> changes. Given the codebase hasn't already been transformed, I
>> did it.
>
> Although I think sticking to a specific style going forward is
> reasonable (even if I'm not fond of all of the recommendations of
> style(9)), I don't think refactoring the existing dwm codebase purely
> for style is a good idea. When I looked at the patches, the first thing
> that came to my mind is "All my dwm patches are going to break because
> they can no longer be cleanly applied." Customization-by-patching is a
> very popular strategy with dwm users, and I'm sure there are tons of
> other people this change would also inconvenience.

Well I do understand your concerns, however patches are done against
released versions and will still apply against them. Nobody is meant
to create patches against arbitrary master revisions.

The only aspect with patch 4 I heavily dislike (and probably style),
which I'm also suggest to be changed back, is the declaration of
static functions being pretty-intended after the type (in particular
line 41-70). I'm heavily against this, and it looks idiotic as well.

_AT_FRIGN: I'm considering to apply your patches, with the exception
outlined of patch 4 line 41-70.

What about this, I intend to make a new dwm and dmenu releases quite
soon, afterwards the most popular patches must be adopted anyways.

After this, also dwm and dmenu are style-compliant.

BR,
Anselm
Received on Tue Dec 23 2014 - 10:28:36 CET