Re: update: Re: [dwm] recent changes to dwm (since dwm-3.5)

if any day dwm gets into the no-more-releases state
would be nice to provide the patches inside the same tarball/repo
and include them in config.h or config.mk.

For me DWM is perfect except for the lack of the append-window patch.
But this will be really easy to re-implement thanks to the new redesign
of dwm.

--pancake

> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:22:41PM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM I wrote:
>> > Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that
>> > those of us who have any significant investment in dwm patches
>> > are in for rough sledding trying to track this refactoring.
>> To which Anselm replied with a detailed list of his changes
>> explaining that none should be a significant impediment to
>> propagating patches.
>
> Well I have to describe the last step:
>
> I split screen.c into layout.c and tag.c again. layout.c
> contains all arrangement-related stuff (*also new algorithms
> like dogrid should go into this file for patches*). tag.c
> contains the tag-related stuff like rules, and the view- and
> tag-specific functions. This seems more natural to me than
> putting everything into a single file.
>
>> In that same posting I further wrote:
>>
>> > Will there be appreciable new functionality or is this just
>> > gilding the lily? At what point will st get any real
>> > attention?
>>
>> So what is the motivation for this refactoring? Personally
>
> The motivation is reducing the code, grouping the functions into
> more intuitive sets and reducing the amount of exported
> functions (only because several functions have been called from
> a different object in one place - that was really annoying).
> So all in all this also reduces the call graph and makes the
> executable slightly smaller than before. Beside the fact of the
> new Layout struct being ready for more layout-specific
> additions.
>
> All in all I think that after this refactoring dwm is in a state
> that we don't need more releases. I have no request for
> additional functionality - it basically fits perfectly my needs.
> So see the motivation as final polishing/review.
>
>> I have much more interest in st reaching a minimal level of
>> utility than in a refactoring of dwm that really presents us
>> nothing new.
>
> Hehe, I'm with you, but lack of time at the moment. I delayed st
> for several reasons. But its development will go on soon.
>
>> But an st that we can all help evolve will make much more of a
>> difference to the suckless community than an endlessly polished
>> dwm.
>
> Hehe yes. But note that dwm was not written from scratch and
> suffered to some extend to design decisions made in wmii, this
> has been fixed now.
>
> The aspect ratio algorithm is going to be slightly changed,
> after this I think it will be time for 3.6.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 12:33:51 UTC