Re: [dev] my next steps on dwm patches, please object now

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:14:11 +0200

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:42:37 -0800
Britton Kerin <> wrote:

Hey Britton,

> Below is a list of what I intend to do about the remaining (obvious)
> defects in the dwm patches.
> The last line of each paragraph is what I have in mind, please object
> now so I don't waste my time, thx.

I welcome that you take your time to discuss this here. There's nothing
worse than losing motivation because you do things that are inherently
not what is expected. It happened to me too.

> checking dwm, attachabove, dwm-git-20120406-attachabove.diff
> prog dwm patch attachabove diff dwm-git-20120406-attachabove.diff
> doesn't match any allowed pattern
> don't know what commit to try to patch
> Strategy: do nothing because it's ancient
> [...]

Okay, this probably is the wrong way to go. I will give you a quick
guide on what would be the best approach in this context because I'm
so glad you want to spend time on the wiki and fix this old mess. :)

Alright, so ask yourself, for a patch to be useful, which conditions
does it need to satisfy?
To answer this question, reflect that users either run stable versions
or on git, the bleeding edge. Thus, for a patch to be useful, it needs
to be provided both for stable tags and for the latest git HEAD.

I took my time and reworked two pages to fit the "consistent" style
already seen in the st-section. Please always refer to the st-section
for style matters, as it is the only consistent patch section on the
The pages are

Especially the author-sections are very inconsistent on the other pages
and there are many spelling mistakes. We also do not want information
on size or date of the patches written behind the link.

But as you can see, the reworked patch pages do not offer patches for
stable versions, which is a problem as especially many Arch users run
dwm as stable and still want to apply patches to it.
So how do we solve this?

Let's first make out 3 categories of patches

(1) patches only supplying stable versions
        -> work forward and create patches for each stable tag
           following and the git HEAD respectively
           If it's too much work, always resort to just creating
           a stable patch for the latest version and a git HEAD patch

(2) patches only supplying git versions
        -> create a patch for the _last_ stable version of dwm
           and update the git patch to HEAD

(3) patches only supplying non-identifiable patches
        -> just test out and try to create patches for the latest
           release and git HEAD.

Okay, now, to give a few examples:

A page satisfying (1) is [1]. What you would do there is first try
to apply the patch to version 5.8.2, as I actually hit more than
a few cases of mislabeled patches.
Next, you "forward-port" the patch. This means, you go forward
to tags 5.9, 6.0, 6.1 and create patches for each version.
It might look a bit redundant, but you have to forward-port anyway,
so there's no reason not to provide those patches.
If you however stumble upon a very ancient patch, feel free to just
port to the latest version 6.1.
As a next step, you create a git patch with the agreed upon naming

A page satisfying (2) is [2]. Here you have to check out how old
the patch is and forward-port it. First go to tag 6.1, create a
stable patch, then make it apply to git HEAD.

A page satisfying (3) is [3]. Here as well, assess the situation
and create patches for 6.1 and git HEAD.


Now, as a final word: I know this is a ton of work. We cannot
fix the dwm patch section by just renaming patches to a new
scheme. We have to do major cleanup and it will require a
big amount of work.
However, once done, we will be able to make sure that
stability is guaranteed in the future by automating the
patch generation (and urging the "maintainer" to fix patches
if they break).

PLEASE, work on a site-per-site-basis and make a commit
for each single page. Don't be scared to flood wiki_AT_ with
Each page should receive a style-cleanup as well, and
both can be combined easily.

I hope this helps. :)



Received on Wed Jul 13 2016 - 08:14:11 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jul 13 2016 - 08:24:12 CEST