I use the patch, simply because i rarely mix tags and because i want to float an entire tag without affecting the others.
Maarten. On 10/26/07, pancake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Btw if we use a diferent layout per tag we should probably also > support a different mwfactor per tag too in the same way. > > btw i continue saying that I don't like this idea at all. > > PD: I have updated the kiwi with the patch: > http://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm/patches/taglayouts > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:56:50 +0200 > pancake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is already on the wiki: > > > > http://herbst.homeunix.org/~jceb/dwm/4.6/current/dwm-4.6-taglayouts.diff > > > > I never had the need to use this patch. But for my eyes this patch needs > > more work. it's using dynamic memory allocation for something that it is > > already static and defined in config.h. > > > > -unsigned int* ltidxs; > > +unsigned int ltidxs[NTAGS]; > > > > so, no need to alloc/free, the patch will be cleaner and simpler... > > > > ...so... > > > > While writing this..i decided to write the patch I had to move > > one variable definition after the config.h include, now it saves > > 7 LOCs (adds 12 lines) > > > > Tha patch is attached. > > > > --pancake > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:07:01 -0400 > > "Jeremy O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I was just wondering how many people here use Jan's taglayouts patch. > > > Personally, I won't upgrade to a new version of dwm unless that patch > > > has been updated as well (or if I can update it myself). I find it > > > indispensable. I guess what I'm getting at is if you guys think it > > > should be included in the main dwm tree? (More of a question to Arg I > > > think ;) ) > > > > > > -- > > > Jeremy O'Brien aka neutral_insomniac > > > GPG key: 0xB1140FDB http://pohl.ececs.uc.edu/~jeremy/jeremy.asc > > > Linux ambelina 2.6.22.9 #1 SMP PREEMPT i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) M > > > processor 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > > --pancake > > > > > --pancake > >
