Applied, thanks.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Nicholas Marriott writes:
>
> > If it makes things significantly simpler to have one define, I think I
> > would consider trimming bits from list-windows and force people to add
> > them back with -F rather tha
Thomas Adam writes:
> I suppose the wider point is that you're not going to please everybody,
> and that despite the change -- and that people are free to change it --
> might seem like too much of a change for people who now have to edit
> their configuration files, etc.
Changing the default te
Nicholas Marriott writes:
> If it makes things significantly simpler to have one define, I think I
> would consider trimming bits from list-windows and force people to add
> them back with -F rather than adding them to choose-windows.
Can we at least have this? (Note: includes the fix previously
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:29:40AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> I don't know if you are offended but you sound a bit like it and there
> is no need, this thread is not a criticism of your work. The default
Gosh, no, I'm not offended. I care though that whilst some changes might
affect more u
I don't know if you are offended but you sound a bit like it and there
is no need, this thread is not a criticism of your work. The default
changed, it makes the code better but it doesn't seem as usable... so
what? It happens to everyone. And I don't think it's bikeshedding, the
layout is a fairly
Hi,
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:45:00PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> I don't mind having DEFAULT_CHOOSE_* and DEFAULT_LIST_* separately, I
> don't much like having the layout there, but it has to be in
> list-windows output.
Well we've already set a precedent for adding information when assig
Oh and I applied your fix for the client ones, thanks.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:45:00PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> I don't mind having DEFAULT_CHOOSE_* and DEFAULT_LIST_* separately, I
> don't much like having the layout there, but it has to be in
> list-windows output.
>
>
> On Sun,
I don't mind having DEFAULT_CHOOSE_* and DEFAULT_LIST_* separately, I
don't much like having the layout there, but it has to be in
list-windows output.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 04:08:01PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Thomas Adam writes:
>
> > Yes. And hey, guess what? You're now free to ch
Thomas Adam writes:
> Yes. And hey, guess what? You're now free to change it with -F.
choose-window is a very important command, using an inferior default just
to factorize some code is a disservice to our users.
--
L
On 27 May 2012 13:49, Romain Francoise wrote:
> While we're on the subject, is it a feature that choose-window now uses
> the same template as list-windows? The old choose-window included the
> title of the active pane which was a lot more useful than, say, the
> layout.
Yes. And hey, guess what
list-clients/choose-client are broken in current svn because the new
template is not syntactically correct, see following patch.
While we're on the subject, is it a feature that choose-window now uses
the same template as list-windows? The old choose-window included the
title of the active pane wh
11 matches
Mail list logo
