Eckehard Berns wrote:
> Sorry for spamming the list, but I didn't catch monocle mode with the
> last patch. Here is a corrected patch...
>
> --
> Eckehard Berns
work in combination with "barwin-leak.patch"
no-raise-float-in-restack.patch work too. dwm-6.0 + SDL-1.2.14 clean
Sorry for spamming the list, but I didn't catch monocle mode with the
last patch. Here is a corrected patch...
--
Eckehard Berns
diff -r 070112b7435f dwm.c
--- a/dwm.c Thu Jan 12 07:36:05 2012 +0100
+++ b/dwm.c Thu Jan 12 23:56:15 2012 +0100
@@ -907,6 +907,8 @@
}
if(c) {
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:16:37PM +0100, Thomas Dean wrote:
> But with two monitors, I constantly find myself moving windows between the
> two, and searching for windows that I "lost" because I put them on the other
> monitor, which makes them lose their previously assigned tags.
You might find i
[2012-01-12 19:06] Anselm R Garbe
> On 12 January 2012 18:34, wrote:
> >
> > I might be interested in trying to help write one such suckless
> > issue tracker as requested on the webpage.
> >
> > I just want to ask;
> > What set of features are a must for you?
>
> Oh what a relief someone wants
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:23:14PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> I attached a somewhat ugly patch to correct the behavior, ...
Oops, we need raising in focusstack() not only for floating windows, but
also if we're in a floating layout. Corrected patch is attached.
--
Eckehard Berns
diff -r 0701
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 07:39:53AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I applied your two patches to tip, this needs to be tested for side effects
> now.
Ok, I ran into trouble pretty fast. Since the floating windows are never
raised in restack() they won't get raised during normal interaction
either.
On 12 January 2012 19:58, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> What's wrong with GNATS?
Nearly everything. GNU, 50kSLOC, etc.
Cheers,
Anselm
What's wrong with GNATS?
Hi,
I removed the eval function, and I added spatial as a variable as with
plugins et al. (Frankly, I hate spatial; why is it default?) Question:
Shouldn't we move spatial, plugins, etc. into config.def.h?
Best,
Peter
--
sic dicit magister P
University of Toronto / Fordham University
Collins
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:16:37PM +0100, Thomas Dean wrote:
> I would imagine that the (or my at least) workflow could be much smoother
> if there was only one tagset, independently of the number of monitors, and
> if there were (a) layout(s) suitable for multi-screen views. The first
> useful lay
On 12 January 2012 18:34, wrote:
> I might be interested in trying to help write one such suckless issue tracker
> as requested on the webpage.
>
> I just want to ask;
> What set of features are a must for you?
Oh what a relief someone wants to volunteer on this idea.
One of the most important
I might be interested in trying to help write one such suckless issue tracker
as requested on the webpage.
I just want to ask;
What set of features are a must for you?
Thanks,
cheers.
I actually really prefer it this way because it's a lot more flexible.
I've tried other WM's and this behavior is the reason I always come
back to DWM.
That said, I like your idea and would love to see it implemented in
the form of a patch.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Dean <78...@web
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:16:37PM +0100, Thomas Dean wrote:
> I've used dwm for about half a year now (3 years of wmii before), and like
> it a lot. However, I find that the handling of tags for multiple monitors
> keeps disturbing my workflow. Isn't it against the general philosophy of
> dwm to a
I've used dwm for about half a year now (3 years of wmii before), and like
it a lot. However, I find that the handling of tags for multiple monitors
keeps disturbing my workflow. Isn't it against the general philosophy of
dwm to assign a definite monitor to each window, and to have separate
tagsets
15 matches
Mail list logo
