On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:53:45PM +0200, Alexandru E. Ungur wrote: > >>> sender: "Anselm R. Garbe" date: "Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:35:17AM +0100" > >>> <<<EOQ > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:22:41PM -0500, John S. Yates, Jr. wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:56:18AM I wrote: > > > > Scanning the bundles showing up on [hackers] it is clear that > > > > those of us who have any significant investment in dwm patches > > > > are in for rough sledding trying to track this refactoring. > > > To which Anselm replied with a detailed list of his changes > > > explaining that none should be a significant impediment to > > > propagating patches. > > > > Well I have to describe the last step: > > > > I split screen.c into layout.c and tag.c again. layout.c > > contains all arrangement-related stuff (*also new algorithms > > like dogrid should go into this file for patches*). > I have a question: if instead of patching the layout.c file for new > layouts, each of us who created a layout patch would create a > separate file, such as: > > layout_grid.c > layout_bstack.c
Do what you like, but don't forget that those files must be included in Makefile somehow and the function signatures must be local in layout.c as well... so I consider this as don't do it that way ;) > wouldn't that be easier for people wanting to try several layout > patches? This way at least the layout patching part would be a simple > file copy, free of any merging conflicts. See above, it's not so simple. And I don't want to hack the Makefile with such quirks we had once in wmii-2. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
