Some people thought it was a good idea to use 6.1 to denote git head before
6.1 actually came out. This worked fine until they stopped maintaining
their patches to apply against git head.
Something should be done about the patches that no longer apply cleanly,
however.
signature.asc
Description:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote:
> Some people thought it was a good idea to use 6.1 to denote git head before
> 6.1 actually came out. This worked fine until they stopped maintaining
> their patches to apply against git head.
>
> Something should be done about the patches that no longer
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:28:53 -0800
Britton Kerin wrote:
Hey Britton,
> The -6.1- substring seems to imply that these patches are intended to
> apply cleanly to version 6.1, but the date strings that are appended
> suggest that maybe they aren't. And they don't (for these two at
> least).
>
> H
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:07:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:28:53 -0800
Britton Kerin wrote:
Hey Britton,
The -6.1- substring seems to imply that these patches are intended to
apply cleanly to version 6.1, but the date strings that are appended
suggest that maybe they aren't
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:21:58 +0800
Pickfire wrote:
Hey Pickfire,
> I suggest using the same syntax as in st which is well maintained, eg:
>
> st-scrollback.diff
> st-git-20151217-scrollback.diff
yeah my bad, this is the current established standard. The issue with
that is, that in
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:25 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:21:58 +0800
> Pickfire wrote:
>
> Hey Pickfire,
>
>> I suggest using the same syntax as in st which is well maintained, eg:
>>
>> st-scrollback.diff
>> st-git-20151217-scrollback.diff
>
> yeah my bad, this is the c
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:07:03 -0800
Britton Kerin wrote:
Hey Britton,
> While I agree it's annoying to have the patches fail, I'm still happy
> I was able to find dwmfifo, it's quite useful to me and the patches aren't
> so rotten that they're hard to figure out. So maybe just fix the misleading
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:24:00AM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote:
> > Some people thought it was a good idea to use 6.1 to denote git head before
> > 6.1 actually came out. This worked fine until they stopped maintaining
> > their patches to apply agai
On 15 June 2016 at 19:45, FRIGN wrote:
> we also had this discussion already. The point here is: using the date of
> the "update" is the best and easiest heuristic. you see with one look
> if a git-patch is relatively old or new.
I would suggest to use: ---.patch
Replacing the "git" portion with
