On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 01:07:01PM +0100, markus schnalke wrote: > I remember a time (probably between version 4.1 or 4.4 or so), when > the development of dwm became more and more stable. dwm began to reach > a point near "finished" (or "perfect"). Changes became smaller, and > mostly it was optimizing the existent features and simplyfing. > > With the multihead thing comming up, I realize a lot of new ideas in > different directions. Changes became big again and everything is a > little bit experimental. > Also complexity increased and the code base as well.
I don't think your observation is true. ; wc -l dwm-4.7/dwm.c 1914 dwm.c ; wc -l dwm-4.7/config.def.h 93 config.def.h ; wc -l dwm-4.7/dwm.1 156 dwm.1 Binary size of dwm-4.7: -rwxr-xr-x 1 anselm anselm 28048 2008-03-13 16:40 dwm ; wc -l dwm-4.8/dwm.c 1911 dwm.c ; wc -l dwm-4.8/config.def.h 93 config.def.h ; wc -l dwm-4.8/dwm.1 157 dwm.1 Binary size of dwm-4.8: -rwxr-xr-x 1 anselm anselm 28048 2008-03-13 16:38 dwm So dwm-4.8 is not bigger or more complex than 4.7. The differences in both are -- dwm-4.8 allows for a more flexible setup regarding master area, bar position, and tile area. dwm-4.8 also allows for easier integration with new layouts and it comes packed already with 4 different layouts. It does not contain setmwfact(), and togglebar(), because these should be changed in a user-defined function, similiar to config.anselm.h. It also does not include togglemax() anymore in favor for monocle. There have been also a lot of code cleanups and polishing, so imho the stability should be similiar as in dwm-4.7 again. > I think special stuff that only few people use should not be > included in core (or mainstream) dwm. > These functionality should be provided as patches instead. Well, if you'd consider the current code base more carefully, you would have noticed that dwm-4.8 is exactly about this. Compare config.def.h to config.anselm.h to see how your remark is realized. > (Patching core dwm should be seen as central characteristic of dwm > usage, in my eyes.) Exactly. > I would like to see dwm coming back to this nearly finished state > again, because it was nearly finished ... and now it's again in this > "featureitis" trap. I don't think you are right in this regard. There were some experiments during the last months, but most of them disappeared already again. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361