Re: ratpoison, patches, and the future

On 30 December 2014 at 22:41, Joren Van Onder <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:15, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
>  > - He expressed a concern that I developed all of these on the same
> > branch. Actually, I did (and do) all of my work on separate branches, but
> > in frustration that the code wasn't being merged into HEAD, I did it
> myself
> > in my repository to make it easier to use the code, both for me and for
> > others to try.
>
> I understand what you were trying to do, but it's not ideal for
> merging. Because right now it's either merge all or nothing (well, those
> are the simplest options at least, you could always do more complicated
> things to merge only parts). Also, the separate feature branches are
> nice for people looking at the code because then all the changes are
> logically grouped per feature. In order to keep it easy for people to
> try out your version of ratpoison (with all the new stuff) you can still
> rebase everything to upstream ratpoison (separate branch), and have your
> master contain all the feature branches. This way you keep the
> individual feature branches for inspection and merging with
> upstream. Atlassian has a good explanation on how to maintain nice clean
> feature branches [1].
>

That makes sense. I don't think I've gone so far that I can't pull these
out into branches based at savannah HEAD. Thanks for explaining it so
clearly.

Thanks for the link.



> > - He proposes that focus_policy become focus or focuspolicy (I prefer
> > the latter, other opinions?). He also proposes that the third option be
> > follows rather than ffm, I have no objection.
>
> I also prefer focuspolicy, it is more descriptive and focus already
> exists in ratpoison. It's a command not a variable, so it could
> theoretically work but I feel like that might be confusing. Follow is a
> nice improvement I think. Abbreviations tend to be confusing because
> most people won't know that it stands for focus follows mouse. It might
> also be nice to add a short explanation to the man page of the
> difference between sloppy and follows. I know you've documented it in
> the TeX, but I feel like like the vast majority of users won't even know
> that that exists.
>

Good point.


> - He's not so keen on my refactoring of cmd_select() and
> > set_active_window_body(), suggesting they don't bring real improvement. I
> > disagree. Both functions were overly long to my eye and harder to
> > understand for it. (A quick git annotate on window.c even suggests that
> > Jérémie may be the author of the FIXME on set_active_window_body(). ;-)
>
> I'm not familiar enough with the code to really say anything about this
> but I did take a quick look at the set_active_window_body change you
> made (ca95ed9c). I'm not sure that extracting a function like you did
> really fixes up the function as the FIXME intended. We could discuss the
> benefits of this change and whether or not it improves readibility in a
> significant way in depth but I feel like your other work/plans are much
> more interesting and exciting things to talk about.
>

I don't think it fixes it, but it seemed a step in the right direction.
Taking the whole step at once seemed overly hard.

-Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ratpoison-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ratpoison-devel