Hi Marco, Marco Hunsicker <i...@hunsicker.de> writes: > I'm not sure as no one really explained it. From Gereon's comment > regarding "ugly numbers" my guess is that the alignment should make sure > that the refreshes happen in a deterministic way in order to display the > time information in a consistent manner. > > 05s -> 10s-> 15s -> 20s. You never see 01s 02s 03s 11s etc. I see.
>> This will still be true with >> the proposed change. And in case people who use minute alignment don’t >> want to have updates during the minute, they should just not send >> SIGUSR1 to i3status, right? > > A bit prohibitive to my liking as the signal is very useful and I would > rather find a solution that works for all use cases. But then I don't I’m not sure why you say that. No matter what you align on (e.g. 05, 10, 15, as you described), the signal will always _force_ an update right now. If you don’t want that, don’t send the signal. The next update after the signal should happen at the regular interval, i.e. as if the signal was not sent. > Personally, I'm fine with the patch. But in order to cater for all > needs, I would find a new configuration option worth thinking about. > This would enable all parties to choose the policy which makes most > sense to them. The new default could be to align only once, but users > would be able to disable alignment or enforce it always. I don’t think adding a configuration option for this subtlety is worth it. -- Best regards, Michael
