Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 8:39 PM, FRIGN wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700 > Ben Woolley wrote: > > Hey Ben, > >> Late reply to this, but I favor the git branch approach as you suggest. >> It is already a dependency, so why not use it for its intended purpose? >> >> The great thing a

Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 09:13:05AM -0700, Ben Woolley wrote: > For releases, you could expose patches for only the branches ahead of the > release, and that might encourage authors to maintain their branches, and > patches could automatically be organized by release. A daily run could update > the

Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Eric Pruitt wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 09:13:05AM -0700, Ben Woolley wrote: >> For releases, you could expose patches for only the branches ahead of the >> release, and that might encourage authors to maintain their branches, and >> patches could automati

Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

Oh, I think I misread/misunderstood your point before. You seem to be talking about patches that would be attached to prior releases only, and not visible in the folder of the latest release. But you want to try an older patch. In that case, how about a summary index of all patches? It would an

Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:19:45PM -0700, Ben Woolley wrote: > My main issue with having to search patches only is that it is far easier on > a remote headless server to install git than a web browser, The suckless site is perfectly usable with elinks, w3m and, if I were to guess, probably links a

[dev] [dwm] Unnecessary scoping blocks

In dwm, I noticed there are two superfluous scoping blocks in grabbuttons and grabkeys. I'm assuming they were added because they were required for C89, but since dwm is compiled with -std=c99 by default, I don't think they're necessary anymore. I've attached a patch to remove them. Eric >From e3d

Re: [dev] which versions are dwm patches intended to apply to cleanly?

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Eric Pruitt wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:19:45PM -0700, Ben Woolley wrote: >> My main issue with having to search patches only is that it is far easier on >> a remote headless server to install git than a web browser, > > The suckless site is perfectly us