On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:12:46AM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>
> Hoi folks,
>
> after a long time (since 3.5) I updated "my" patches to the current tip.
>
> As you perhaps remember/know, I habe only 2 tags between I toggle. I use them
> as workspaces. Clients are matched to only one tag.
>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:58:15PM -0400, Jeremy O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:12:46AM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > Hoi folks,
> >
> > after a long time (since 3.5) I updated "my" patches to the current tip.
> >
> > As you perhaps remember/know, I habe only 2 tags between
Hoi folks,
after a long time (since 3.5) I updated "my" patches to the current tip.
As you perhaps remember/know, I habe only 2 tags between I toggle. I use them
as workspaces. Clients are matched to only one tag.
So my Workflow is somehow different from normal dwm tagging style, but it is
high
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:38:06PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
>
> Hoi developers,
>
> if I understood the code right, then you should change this comment to
> say more clearly what these lines are for.
> I needed some minutes to figure out what the comment meant ...
>
> Okay, the new comment
Hoi developers,
if I understood the code right, then you should change this comment to
say more clearly what these lines are for.
I needed some minutes to figure out what the comment meant ...
Okay, the new comment isn't perfect either ... maybe something in between
should be chosen.
markus
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:40:12AM -0400, Ross Mohn wrote:
> It's all well and good that people are polishing dwm[1], announcing
> awesome[2], and teasing us with siaynoq's disgruntled paradigms[3], but
> what I could really use are a working dwm-ish for my stupid MSwin box at
> work and, even bett
2007/9/20, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9/20/07, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> > > called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbo
On 9/20/07, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> > called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
> >
> > awesome is, yet, another window manag
On 9/20/07, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> > called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
> >
> > awesome is, yet, another window manag
On 9/20/07, Tuncer Ayaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> > called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
> >
> > awesome is, yet, another window manag
On 9/20/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
>
> awesome is, yet, another window manager, which is based on dwm source code.
> In contrast to dwm, it d
It's all well and good that people are polishing dwm[1], announcing
awesome[2], and teasing us with siaynoq's disgruntled paradigms[3], but
what I could really use are a working dwm-ish for my stupid MSwin box at
work and, even better, a working st along with some of it's own
teasers[4]!
'Course,
Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[rxvt-unicode]
> Previously, I had some weird corruptions at the place of this unused
> space. This only happened with urxvt though, not xterm. Not sure why..
> But I'm happier with urxvt anyway.
I've noticed this behaviour with urxvt when window size hints are
At 1190296032 time_t, Jeremy O'Brien wrote:
> "there's no stupid limit on its source size, we have features we want."
>
> That seems rather combative! Are you calling Anselm stupid?
Not at all. I think the idea is quite stupid, YMMV.
Smart people can have weird idea, I'm sure you're aware
about t
On 9/20/07, Jeremy O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "there's no stupid limit on its source size, we have features we want."
>
> That seems rather combative! Are you calling Anselm stupid?
I wouldn't have used the word "stupid", but I personally think
excessively concentrating on SLOC tends to
Hi,
* Jeremy O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-20 15:51]:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
[...]
> "there's no stupid limit on its source size, we have features we want."
>
> That seems rather combative! Are you calling Anselm stupid?
"This keeps its userbase s
I would say that the lines of code limit is very smart! It make you think
before you change/add something, that is much better the wondering how
things got so out of hand further down the road. Any idiot can make software
do anything with unlimited space/resources. That is the reason we have so
muc
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
> called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
>
> awesome is, yet, another window manager, which is based on dwm source code.
> In contrast
Hi everybody,
With the approval of Anselm, I'd like to present to you a new project
called "awesome"[1], a direct neighbour of dwm.
awesome is, yet, another window manager, which is based on dwm source code.
In contrast to dwm, it does not have any limit about its SLOC size.
Consequently, it alre
"Anselm R. Garbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I keep in mind testing the togglemax-patch, but please let me
> know any issues in hg tip.
Working nicely here. I haven't been able to crash it nor persuade it to
behave strangely. The single dwm.c without any header files is indeed
easier to work w
20 matches
Mail list logo
