Re: [i3] [i3status] Update interval alignment glitch
Hello Michael, A bit prohibitive to my liking as the signal is very useful and I would rather find a solution that works for all use cases. But then I don't I’m not sure why you say that. I was probably too fixated on my needs. You're right with your conclusion that someone who prefers the alignment might just want to wait a little while for the next automatic refresh. But there is still the (small) problem of misalignment after startup. I don’t think adding a configuration option for this subtlety is worth it. If you're fine with the provided patch, I certainly am. It's a pity that Gereon did not comment any further. Cheers, Marco
Re: [i3] [i3status] Update interval alignment glitch
Hi Marco, Marco Hunsicker writes: > I'm not sure as no one really explained it. From Gereon's comment > regarding "ugly numbers" my guess is that the alignment should make sure > that the refreshes happen in a deterministic way in order to display the > time information in a consistent manner. > > 05s -> 10s-> 15s -> 20s. You never see 01s 02s 03s 11s etc. I see. >> This will still be true with >> the proposed change. And in case people who use minute alignment don’t >> want to have updates during the minute, they should just not send >> SIGUSR1 to i3status, right? > > A bit prohibitive to my liking as the signal is very useful and I would > rather find a solution that works for all use cases. But then I don't I’m not sure why you say that. No matter what you align on (e.g. 05, 10, 15, as you described), the signal will always _force_ an update right now. If you don’t want that, don’t send the signal. The next update after the signal should happen at the regular interval, i.e. as if the signal was not sent. > Personally, I'm fine with the patch. But in order to cater for all > needs, I would find a new configuration option worth thinking about. > This would enable all parties to choose the policy which makes most > sense to them. The new default could be to align only once, but users > would be able to disable alignment or enforce it always. I don’t think adding a configuration option for this subtlety is worth it. -- Best regards, Michael
Re: [i3] [i3status] Update interval alignment glitch
Hello Michael, But it's only a compromise if I understand the intention of the minute aligning correctly. Why is it a compromise? What is the intention behind the minute aligning? I'm not sure as no one really explained it. From Gereon's comment regarding "ugly numbers" my guess is that the alignment should make sure that the refreshes happen in a deterministic way in order to display the time information in a consistent manner. 05s -> 10s-> 15s -> 20s. You never see 01s 02s 03s 11s etc. Therefore his preference to perform the alignment always, not only upon a new minute. I thought it’s to have an update at the beginning of every minute, just as we align on full seconds. My thinking initially, hence my patch. But now I'm not sure anymore. This will still be true with the proposed change. And in case people who use minute alignment don’t want to have updates during the minute, they should just not send SIGUSR1 to i3status, right? A bit prohibitive to my liking as the signal is very useful and I would rather find a solution that works for all use cases. But then I don't know how many users find the alignment essential. I don't include seconds with my clock. I could do without any alignment at all, therefore my idea to inspect the time information. Personally, I'm fine with the patch. But in order to cater for all needs, I would find a new configuration option worth thinking about. This would enable all parties to choose the policy which makes most sense to them. The new default could be to align only once, but users would be able to disable alignment or enforce it always. Cheers, Marco
Re: [i3] [i3status] Update interval alignment glitch
Hi Marco, Marco Hunsicker writes: >> I think strategy 3, i.e. refreshing upon SIGUSR1, starting with the >> intervals from there and still aligning to minutes, sounds like the best >> option. > > But it's only a compromise if I understand the intention of the minute > aligning correctly. Why is it a compromise? What is the intention behind the minute aligning? I thought it’s to have an update at the beginning of every minute, just as we align on full seconds. This will still be true with the proposed change. And in case people who use minute alignment don’t want to have updates during the minute, they should just not send SIGUSR1 to i3status, right? -- Best regards, Michael
