At 1261391738 time_t, Renato Botelho wrote:
> What does we need to do to confirm this?

I changed the status.

> Hiltjo P. (bob127) submitted a patch, and jd commented saying it shouldn't
> touch awful.tag, what does we need to change on this patch to make it
> ok? JIC, it's working fine here and i have plans to add it on FreeBSD ports
> collection, any security problem or any other kind of problem adding it there?

The problem is that awful.rules is a optional module. You should be able
to start without it.

And with the patch, if you do not require awful.rules, your new windows
will start with no tags, and therefore will be invisible, which is even
more problematic.

The patch fixing that problem should not touch the call to
with_current(), or make awful requires definitively awful.rules. But I
guess that if you do that, people using other rules system such as
shifty will start crying, because last time I heard about it, shifty was
explicitely unregistering withcurrent().

Something that finally awful.rules should do itself, even if it seems a
little be weird. ;)

If it works that'd be a correct patch I guess.

Cheers,
-- 
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <[email protected]>   http://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974  C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
// The more we fly, the more we climb, the more we know that heaven is a lie.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

  • #664 status Renato Botelho
    • Re: #664 status Julien Danjou

Reply via email to