Hi,
Can you resend after generating with git format-patch?
I can't apply this patch.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014, at 01:01 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> You did not rewrite cal(1) in its entirety.
Very true. I am well aware of that. I never claimed that I did. My
point was that cal.c was the *only* file that I modified.
Would you like me to re-submit a corrected patch (i.e. my nam
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:51:24PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> I don't think it is fair to the other authors for my name to be listed
> without qualification in the LICENSE file since I only modified one
> file. That is why I put my name in the one file that I modified. That
> issue could be addr
I don't think it is fair to the other authors for my name to be listed
without qualification in the LICENSE file since I only modified one
file. That is why I put my name in the one file that I modified. That
issue could be addressed, however, by putting my name in the LICENSE
file accompanied by
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:28:08 -0500
Greg Reagle wrote:
> /* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
> +/* © 2014 Greg Reagle */
See LICENSE file for copyright and license details.
See LICENSE file for copyright and license details.
See LICENSE file for copyright and license detai
Sorry, truncated message. Trying again.
I re-wrote this primarily for my own fun and education, but it has a few
benefits in my biased opinion:
- no limit on number of months (removed MONTHMAX)
- strings printed to stdout rather than copied to memory, eliminating
the potential for out-of-range
I re-wrote this
--
http://www.fastmail.com - Does exactly what it says on the tin
---
cal.c | 153
++
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cal.c b/cal.c
index dca2313..20d26be 100644
--- a/cal.c
+++ b/cal.c
@@ -1,101 +1,105 @@
/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
+
Greetings. I was born well after the year -7, so I don't know if there
were any calendar shenanigans going on that long ago, but it looks like
an error:
greagle@530GA ~/D/p/sbase> ./cal -3 1 -7
January -7 February -7 March -7
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> The point of this rule is not visual alignment. Width of the type doesn't
> matter; it is always one tab. The advantage is that you can find the
> declaration of member foo by grepping for ^Ifoo.
That violates the suckless style guide
Dimitris Papastamos writes:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 04:11:16PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> >
> > >> The style(9)-changes were absolutely necessary and it's better to do thi
> s
> > >> as early as possible instead of waiting and waiting until it's too late
> > >> and you have a really big num
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 04:11:16PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>
> >> The style(9)-changes were absolutely necessary and it's better to do this
> >> as early as possible instead of waiting and waiting until it's too late
> >> and you have a really big number of patches for a given program.
> >
>> The style(9)-changes were absolutely necessary and it's better to do this
>> as early as possible instead of waiting and waiting until it's too late
>> and you have a really big number of patches for a given program.
>
> The thing I dislike most about the style changes is the alignment of
> va
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:28:40AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> I hope you saw these patches are for dmenu, not dwm. However, your
> arguments still apply because there is a small set of patches for dmenu.
Ah, you're right. I _did_ think this was for dwm; my mistake.
> Still, for the sake of preserving
Hi,
Just some relatively minimal style changes.
>From e25f9ac2320f2a53970ea06c007219841f917d4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sin
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:40:57 +
Subject: [PATCH] Style changes
---
slock.c | 105 ++--
1 file chang
On 23 December 2014 at 10:34, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:28:36 +0100
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
>> @FRIGN: I'm considering to apply your patches, with the exception
>> outlined of patch 4 line 41-70.
>
> I'm okay with that. ;)
> Do you want me to send you an updated patch 4 or are you a
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:28:36 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hey Anselm,
> @FRIGN: I'm considering to apply your patches, with the exception
> outlined of patch 4 line 41-70.
I'm okay with that. ;)
Do you want me to send you an updated patch 4 or are you able to
manually merge them into the codebas
On 23 December 2014 at 01:10, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:40:59PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
>> PATCH 4: As already discussed style(9) is the reference for future code
>> changes. Given the codebase hasn't already been transformed, I
>> did it.
>
> Although I think s
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:10:05 -0800
Eric Pruitt wrote:
Hey Eric,
> Although I think sticking to a specific style going forward is
> reasonable (even if I'm not fond of all of the recommendations of
> style(9)), I don't think refactoring the existing dwm codebase purely
> for style is a good idea.
19 matches
Mail list logo
