On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Brendan Desmond wrote:
> On 2015-11-09, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
>
> Hi Hiltjo, I noticed that in the latest release tarball from the Suckless
> web
> site, the line referring to $FREETYPEINC for OpenBSD in config.mk is
> uncommented, like so:
>
> # freetype
> FREETYP
On 10/11/2015, David Phillips wrote:
> Just wondering what the rest of the community reckons about an issue
> that popped up briefly on IRC.
>
> I'll start with an example: some patches, for a long time, have been
> named `dwm-6.1-fibwibble.diff`—long before dwm-6.1 was released. When
> I was more
> On 10/11/2015, David Phillips wrote:
> > Just wondering what the rest of the community reckons about an issue
> > that popped up briefly on IRC.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > What do you all think?
> >
Agreed that the way patches are being named right now is confusing.
Dates and/or refs in the name would
Jack L. Frost wrote:
> Agreed that the way patches are being named right now is confusing. Dates
> and/or refs in the name would be very much appreciated.
Heyho,
I make the following proposal:
Use shortrefs for the filename, but use dates on the wikipage or at least
annotate the hyperlink with
> Use shortrefs for the filename, but use dates on the wikipage or at least
> annotate the hyperlink with the date.
I like this idea. Now that you say it, the only reason I would have
wanted the date in there too was to be able to quickly check how old a
patch was. But there is really no need for
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:43:01PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
Jack L. Frost wrote:
Agreed that the way patches are being named right now is confusing. Dates
and/or refs in the name would be very much appreciated.
Use shortrefs for the filename, but use dates on the wikipage or at least
annota
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:28:45 +1300
David Phillips wrote:
Hey David,
> > What do you all think?
> >
>
> I should amend my comment about date formats, it would appear I was
> incorrect in implying MMDD is non-standard. But it might still be
> nice to settle on one or the other.
the patch se
On 10/18/2015 06:46 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
…and of course the always loved “update patches from the wiki to apply cleanly
against git HEAD”.
Just started to try to do so, and now I really understand why people
hate stylistic source code changes. :>
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On 10/18/2015 06:46 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
> >…and of course the always loved “update patches from the wiki to apply
> >cleanly
> >against git HEAD”.
>
> Just started to try to do so, and now I really understand why people hate
> styl
On November 10, 2015 12:48:02 AM CET, Eric Pruitt wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
>> On 10/18/2015 06:46 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
>> >…and of course the always loved “update patches from the wiki to
>apply cleanly
>> >against git HEAD”.
>>
>> Just started to try
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:56:59AM +0100, 7heo wrote:
> indent(1). You're welcome.
Or I could just use sed(1) to join any lone "{"s with the previous line.
I'm aware of the options, but since I already have to change a number of
my patches to deal with the booleans, I may as well deal with braces
On November 10, 2015 1:01:46 AM CET, Eric Pruitt wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:56:59AM +0100, 7heo wrote:
>> indent(1). You're welcome.
>
>Or I could just use sed(1) to join any lone "{"s with the previous
>line.
>I'm aware of the options, but since I already have to change a number
>of
>my p
Hi all,
> The shortref can check the date anyway. I think it is best that the filename
> to be simple
It is a lot slower to grab the shortref and look its date up, rather
than just reading a date.
> And we put the date (and maybe size) after the file
This would solve my above problem, but intr
David Phillips wrote:
> Additionally, suckless patches are unlikely to be too large for users to start
> worrying about sizes and download times. I don't object to this proposal, but
> I would not worry about including file size with any patch I upload or update.
Heyho David,
This is an interesti
Greg Reagle wrote:
> Just started to try to do so, and now I really understand why people hate
> stylistic source code changes. :>
Eric Pruitt wrote:
> Bingo. I now have 15 patches I have to fix because someone decided they
didn't like booleans or the location of the opening brace for function
de
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:48:02PM -0800, Eric Pruitt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
On 10/18/2015 06:46 AM, Markus Teich wrote:
>…and of course the always loved “update patches from the wiki to apply cleanly
>against git HEAD”.
Just started to try to do so
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Pickfire wrote:
[SNIP]
> I am not very sure why people use int instead of booleans in C.
>
> I think stylistic code changes can make it easier to maintain on the
> early stages.
It used to be, before C99 (and newer) became as prevalent as they are
today, to portabl
17 matches
Mail list logo
