Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:07:03 +0200

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:28:53 -0800
Britton Kerin <> wrote:

Hey Britton,

> The -6.1- substring seems to imply that these patches are intended to
> apply cleanly to version 6.1, but the date strings that are appended
> suggest that maybe they aren't. And they don't (for these two at
> least).
> How is this supposed to work?
> I could make a script to test the patches again the given version if
> -6.1- or something is included.

this is all too complex, as most people who submit patches here lack
Patches with versions should apply to the released versions. Everything
upstream should be called "git" and the date of patch release.
It's the task of the patch maintainer/submitter to rebase his patches
accordingly to each release, which is not difficult as dwm has very
slow releases.
Say, I submit a patch today to give dwm a HAL-9000 color scheme and
call it
applying to both the 6.1 release version (always the latest release
for patches) and the git HEAD respectively.

Now, let's assume I go abroad to North Korea or something, and nobody
gives a shit about the patch (Most of the dwm patches in the wiki are
dead, I did the cleanup for st already, but dwm is still pending).
Now, let's say we release 6.2 and 6.3 before I return. So, now, when
I check back in in 2018, what I should do is create the following
And that's it! :D

There are 3 rules here that we should abide to:
        1) If you update the patch against git HEAD, remove the old
           git-patch. There should always be one latest git patch.
           People who really need an older git patch can check the
           suckless-wiki git-logs.
        2) If you publish a new patch, create 2 versions: for
           the latest release and for git HEAD (even if they're
           the same)
        3) Maintaining a patch involves both creating new patches
           for future tags and updating the git-patch as often
           as necessary so it's easy enough to use.
           An exception is when a feature pulled into mainline
           makes the patch superfluous.

A point of debate for me really is when it comes to those super-
fluous patches. Should we remove them or provide them for older
versions of dwm?
In my opinion, there is no reason for this legacy stuff. The
dwm-patch section is already cramped enough, a cleanup would
be pretty helpful.
What do you guys think?



Received on Wed Jun 15 2016 - 13:07:03 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 15 2016 - 13:12:11 CEST