Re: [dev] [st] [PATCH 2/2] Keep end of lines in memory when resizing terminal

From: Quentin Rameau <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:21:27 +0200

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:11:05PM +0200, Quentin Rameau wrote:
> > > nevertheless I do think that all this still doesn't justify a
> > > scrollback buffer built into st itself. Instead of mandating the
> > > use of tmux et al, I would rather put a helper tool into the st
> > > repo, that works as a basic shell wrapper process (no detaching).
> > > It would implement the scrollback buffer only and allow to define
> > > its size in a more flexible way (possibly via a command line
> > > argument) and also the control sequences / key combos to actually
> > > scroll around. The tool name could be stsb or something similar.
> > >
> > > What do you think about this compromise?
> >
> > This is actually something that has been discussed for some time now
> > and we agreed this is the way to do it (in view of st).
> >
> > But nobody really took the time to go for it yet, although emg have
> > a rough one he started working on a few months ago, but I think he
> > didn't really have time to continue on it.
> >
> Where can we look at its current state?


Read again what I said, and then maybe you can work out the answer
yourself. Hint: emg.

> Though the fact that someone has to find time to "continue"
> implementation of a scrollback suggests that approach is wrong.

Why is that? Because you think software gets written by magic without
taking anybody's time?
Somebody have to write it, so the approach is wrong.
Yes, sounds like a good customer point.

> Scrollback patch [1] adds 98 lines and removes 25 according to
> diffstat. If implementing it separately takes significantly more
> effort than that, it is probably not worth it.

Thank you for sharing your view on this, as they say, everybody's
entitled to an opinion.
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 10:21:27 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Mar 28 2017 - 10:24:13 CEST