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

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:53:45PM +0200, Alexandru E. Ungur wrote:
> >>> sender: "Anselm R. Garbe" date: "Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:17AM +0100" <<<EOQ
> > 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*).
> I have a question: if instead of patching the layout.c file for new
> layouts, each of us who created a layout patch would create a
> separate file, such as:
>
> layout_grid.c
> layout_bstack.c

Do what you like, but don't forget that those files must be
included in Makefile somehow and the function signatures must be
local in layout.c as well... so I consider this as don't do it
that way ;)

> wouldn't that be easier for people wanting to try several layout
> patches? This way at least the layout patching part would be a simple
> file copy, free of any merging conflicts.

See above, it's not so simple. And I don't want to hack the
Makefile with such quirks we had once in wmii-2.

Regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361