Re: [wmii] Preparations for 3.5

> > What the hell is "relaxation"? Either way, apps that request increment
> > handling
> > should work, inc handling is an abomination, but it is part of X, and
> > apps depend on it. At some point someone (JG?) was planning the most
> > obvious solution: after sizes are assigned with inc-handling
> > constraints in mind, stack all apps towards the end of the window,
> > whatever space is left is distributed between the apps if it is enough
> > to add an extra increment until nothing is left. I don't see why this
> > is a problem at all.
>
> What you describe is called 'relaxation' (this term is borrowed
> from Donalds TeX typesetting algorithm, when aligning boxes).
>
> However, in dwm I made good results with dropping inrement
> handling for managed apps, and supporting it only for floating
> apps - that works quite well, also regarding to st which won't
> depend on inc handling. If you handle inremental resizals for
> managed apps you will always get gaps if all apps in a specific
> column request incremental resizals (which is the majority,
> because wmii users are terminal users). Thus keep the column
> layout algorithm as simple as possible and simply drop
> incremental resizals from managed mode.

This whole discussion is completely pointless. The "gap" should only
appear at the bottom of cols, and only if *all* the apps in that col
ask for inc handling.

AND IF PEOPLE DONT LIKE THAT, THEY SHOULD NOT FUCKING USE APPS THAT
REQUEST INC HANDLING. It is that simple. *period*

Most X apps require inc handling to work, starting with xterm, which
is probably the most ubiquitous X app. It is braindamaged, but this is
X, what the fuck did you expect?

And I am sick of having this discussion again and again, LEARN TO
FUCKING LISTEN!

> > >It is also needed to update the documentation to at least reflect the
> > >new fs. Porting the old wiki to the new format is not of topmost
> > >priority either, since 3.5 is only an intermediary release, but also
> > >because the new taggi doesn't look feature-stable yet.
>
> Obviously I need to repeat what I told: I asked for converting
> the old wiki pages into markdown syntax. How taggi will arrange
> the pages/tags is a different question. First we need the
> available information in one place.

In other words, you broke everything, and now want somebody else to do
the dirty work for you. The world doesn't work like that: you broke
it, you fix it. Some of us already have enough with having to repeat
the same shit endlessly because you *never* learn.

uriel
Received on Tue Oct 31 2006 - 10:53:05 UTC