> I think we should stop creating unwanted complexity. As for all
> suckless software our goal is to create software that works for
> everyone without having tons of configure options and features to
> choose from. For those exceptional cases where people use something
> like dmenu in a modified wa
2010/11/22 Anselm R Garbe :
>
> I don't mind if you set up a git repo where each patch from the
> website resides in a separate branch, but I think you just organise
> the existing approach just differently. You don't fix the problem,
> which is having a suitable process to determine the best featu
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:11:46 -0500
Ross Mohn wrote:
> Success! After much debugging, I found and patched two bugs in the v0.6
> code. I've got it working on AIX now, but I'm not fully satisfied with
> the forkpty-aix.c code so I won't post that piece yet unless others need
> it now.
Congratulat
On 22 November 2010 15:26, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 22 November 2010 12:01, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I prefer to keep cleanup() even if it slows down the performance
>> (which I doubt will be noticeable) just for the sake of keeping the
>> symmetry that the code that allocates resources also
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:26:56 +
Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 22 November 2010 12:01, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > I prefer to keep cleanup() even if it slows down the performance
> > (which I doubt will be noticeable) just for the sake of keeping the
> > symmetry that the code that allocates re
On 22 November 2010 12:01, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I prefer to keep cleanup() even if it slows down the performance
> (which I doubt will be noticeable) just for the sake of keeping the
> symmetry that the code that allocates resources also deallocates them.
> This might sound a bit pedantic and u
On 21 November 2010 14:02, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 21 November 2010 03:56, Dan Brown wrote:
>> 2) dmenu v4.2.1 appears to be leaking memory. It is missing the
>> routines to teardown/cleanup memory structures present in previous
>> versions. This patch also adds them.
>
> As Wolf says, ther
On 21 November 2010 21:42, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:56:07 +
> Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2010 19:33, wrote:
>> > Another kinda heretic idea might be to have fairly feature-rich
>> > branches and feature-removing patches. Just thinking loud
>>
>>
