Re: [wmii] suggestions for the sanitizing of swapping

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:51:24 +0200

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:43:28AM -0400, Bill Puschmann wrote:
> Just out of curiosity (and to finally stick my nose into the swapping
> debate) - are we looking at this from wmii-3 standpoint or for wmii-4 (as
> it's never been explicitly stated)? I, for one, would hate to see a
> rewrite/rework of window movement and focus algorithms after we'd already
> gone to release candidates for wmii-3. I just see too many possible
> hurdles.... call me nervous. I'd like to see the feature-base frozen while
> the kinks are worked out (and, no, "making the code look prettier" doesn't
> strictly count as fixing bugs... that's a never-ending goal).
> (for the record - I do use swapping on occasion and moving all the time...
> but I'm not married to the ideas, so I've kept myself out of the debate.)

My favorized way is to keep swapping as it is, fix the open issues
(they are nearly fixed already) discussed recently, and create
the last rc3.

For wmii-4 I really plan to remove swapping right after the

I think this decision doesn't hurts anyone.


> On 5/8/06, Stefan Tibus <> wrote:
> >
> >On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 12:55:02PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >> My intention for removing swapping is not the LOC which can be
> >> safed (that is really a marginal aspect). It is the simplicity
> >> of the overall column concept and the usage patterns which are
> >> involved with it. Having a basic and simple move-only based
> >> concept means, that people use it the same way, which is
> >> important for future development, documentation, tutorials, etc.
> >What's the problem with describing swapping in the docs?
> >
> >> Also, if one compares the move-only and swapping usage patterns
> >> to dynamic window management, it seems to me that sticking to a
> >> static number of columns and using swapping most of the time is
> >> less efficient than using as many columns as necessary for a
> >> task and using the clients in the specific position as they
> >> are (or move them if one needs them in a different place).
> >That's a question of window sizes and involved redrawings. Even
> >on a large screen (so it's not screen-size dependent) I'd like
> >to have my main editing window to be the largest and others
> >I just have open to look something up smaller. When I change
> >working file I want to have that one largest. And to have it
> >so, swapping is much easier and faster than some other way to
> >move the client around or change its size... I rarely split
> >up my screen into many equal-sized windows. Or, to tell it in
> >another way: The larswm way very well fits my own way, but
> >larswm is too fixed on that. And stacking and moving is not
> >a good replacement. That's why I like wmii but with swapping.
> >And I just can't see why this great feature should be bad
> >style.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Stefan
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> > mailing list
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> mailing list

 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Mon May 08 2006 - 15:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:04:31 UTC