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

From: Britton Kerin <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:07:03 -0800

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, FRIGN <> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:21:58 +0800
> Pickfire <> wrote:
> Hey Pickfire,
>> I suggest using the same syntax as in st which is well maintained, eg:
>> st-scrollback.diff
>> st-git-20151217-scrollback.diff
> yeah my bad, this is the current established standard. The issue with
> that is, that in a directory structure, they are easy to point out.
> A sorted output would put
> st-scrollback-6.1.diff
> st-scollback-git-20151217.diff
> together. And to be honest, it confuses the heck out of me every
> time I make updates to the patches.
>> Talking stuff here won't change much, just change
>> so that most of the people can see it.
> Yes, very good point. I'll look into it.

While I agree it's annoying to have the patches fail, I'm still happy
I was able to find dwmfifo, it's quite useful to me and the patches aren't
so rotten that they're hard to figure out. So maybe just fix the misleading
file names? Also might be nice if the dates in the names corresponded
to an actual date of a commit (I guess at the moment they correspond to
the nearest earlier commit but I haven't checked).

Received on Wed Jun 15 2016 - 19:07:03 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 15 2016 - 19:12:13 CEST