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

2016-06-16 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 16 June 2016 at 16:15, FRIGN wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200 > Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> I would suggest to use: --> hash>-.patch > > st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch > Well, fair enough. My final suggestion is then: ---.patch Would make: st-externalpipe-20160423-ea8

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

2016-06-16 Thread Britton Kerin
Here's a fixed version of dwmfifo using the naming conventions that seem current give practice in st and discussion here: since it's against a release version nothing but that in the tag. I like the st format for names of patches against non-release ok, though I can see the case for git commit as

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

2016-06-16 Thread Quentin Rameau
Hi, > Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there. You will as soon as you have seen another one. > Also, always > think about how you can enforce this properly. Most people don't even > know how to get a short hash. Too bad for “most people”, they'll have to learn (that “getting” a shor

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

2016-06-16 Thread Martin Kühne
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:15 PM, FRIGN wrote: >> I would suggest to use: --> hash>-.patch > > st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch > > Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there. Use 4 digit years. Also, there's ISO-8601 [0]. cheers! mar77i [0] https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i

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

2016-06-16 Thread FRIGN
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:23:15 +0200 v4hn wrote: Hey v4hn, > No. It indicates that individuals make use of some patches and contribute > their changes to make a patch work with whatever git checkout they use. > > Threads such as this one only appear because people who are too lazy to > update pat

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

2016-06-16 Thread FRIGN
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:27:58 +0200 Anselm R Garbe wrote: Hey Anselm, > I would suggest to use: -- hash>-.patch st-externalpipe-ea87104-160423.patch Admittedly, I don't immediately see the date in there. Also, always think about how you can enforce this properly. Most people don't even

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

2016-06-16 Thread v4hn
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:58:34AM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote: > > What? Since when were any patches "supported"? > > The amount of effort that goes into organising them (as evidenced by the > thread) indicates that, in fact, there is some "support

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

2016-06-16 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, David Phillips wrote: > What? Since when were any patches "supported"? The amount of effort that goes into organising them (as evidenced by the thread) indicates that, in fact, there is some "support".