On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:44:15PM +0100, Leonhard Scherer wrote: > Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:35:38PM +0100, Leonhard Scherer wrote: > > > >>What I want to say is this: > >>Don't blow up the code of DWM; why don't you just use patches for your > >>special needs? The simpler DWM stays the easier is it for Anselm to code > >>it and for other people to expand the code. > >> > > > >If you check hg tip, you'll notice that the source is smaller > >than in dwm-2.2 ;) > > > >Regards, > > > Gooood :D > > Since you are the developer, could you just tell us, what you gonna do? > As everybody can see, there are the two kinds of opinions: The ones who > want to keep at least most of the features and the ones who don't. ;) > > How do you see DWM in the future? More features? Less features? > > In which direction will DWM go?
I think dwm hasn't changed so much in the past, some features went in, some went out. Several stay since the beginning (e.g. dotile() and tagging). I don't expect that dwm will look totally different one day. It is almost finished in my eyes. And I already concentrate on other things like st and network analysis tools. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://suckless.org/~arg/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
