On 15.01.2012 17:26, Anurag Priyam wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Uli Schlachter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> + local cls = client.visible(screen) >> >> Uhm, what?! This doesn't look like it has any chance of not erroring out. > > Oops. This is why I waited to get a snack before sending the patch > series; I intended to review and hopefully catch this silly error. But > seeing your mail the first thing when I got back, I couldn't resist.
Heh, I make other people send in bugs. :-) >> (client.visible() will call capi.client.get(screen) and the C code will >> complain >> that awful.screen is not a screen object) > > You mean index, not screen object, right? Yeah. This feels messy. Why does all the code everywhere use a screen index instead of screen objects? >> Search and replace error? > > Yep :-|. My tooltip was working, so that lowered my guards too. > > Fixed in the attached patch. > > git fetch origin isn't returning anything. You messaged too early? > Or server issues? I just said "merged", not "pushed". ;-) I wanted to avoid having to do another revert in case something goes wrong. Oh and: pushed On 15.01.2012 17:33, Anurag Priyam wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Anurag Priyam <[email protected]> >> Fixed in the attached patch. > >> Author: Anurag Priyam <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun Jan 15 16:27:47 2012 +0530 >> >> awful.placement: can now operate on any object with a set geometry >> >> So the utility of `awful.placement` is not merely limited to client objects, >> but also to wiboxes. >> >> [us: use appropriate naming convention; catch misplaced statement] > > This is something I picked from git.git (no, I am not a git > contributor, but I do read the code and git log and git mailing list > sometimes): > > 'us' is your initials. It can always be uniquely looked up from the > list of 'Signed-off-by' at the end of the commit message. Followed by > it is a small description of how you contributed to the patch. > Ideally, you would have made the change yourself (unless the patch > needs a complete rewrite), add your contribution to the commit message > in the above format, and sign off. Basically, it tracks almost > everything that went into creating that patch: me as the author, your > as reviewer cum improver, ... > > Since you sign off again anyway, I took the liberty of adding that for > you. Feel free to remove it. I never saw such a commit, I think. However, I don't read any git mailing lists either. So if I edit your patch and introduce a bug, wouldn't that mean that you get blamed for it? Or what if I change your patch in a way that you don't like? I don't like editing other people's patches and then pretending they did that... Uli -- Bitte nicht mit dem verbleibenden Auge in den Laser gucken. - Vincent Ebert -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
