[9fans] OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[9fans] OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[David Leimbach]

Somehow I missed that ww was for "winwatch" :-)... D'oh!

Seems someone else wanted winwatch to hide and unhide windows.

it was rejected because the original interface was intended to be a
click just like clicking in rio.

However it's already making it so I don't have to go through the rio
menu to find the window I want to unhide, it seemed logical to try to
re-hide it if it's not the one I'm looking for.

I find it useful to make winwatch a long stripe vertically and have
several independent sub-rio sessions as "virtual desktops".  However
it occurs to me that simple raising of each session above the other is
sufficient.

Oh well... at least I tried to do something :-)

Dave

[9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[David Leimbach]

I did find one situation where hiding is useful... and that's when
I've taken up all of my root rio's desktop space with this sidebar
strip, and want to quickly hide winwatch itself.

*shrug*

I'll probably snap back to the old version.

On 7/19/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somehow I missed that ww was for "winwatch" :-)... D'oh!
>
> Seems someone else wanted winwatch to hide and unhide windows.
>
> it was rejected because the original interface was intended to be a
> click just like clicking in rio.
>
> However it's already making it so I don't have to go through the rio
> menu to find the window I want to unhide, it seemed logical to try to
> re-hide it if it's not the one I'm looking for.
>
> I find it useful to make winwatch a long stripe vertically and have
> several independent sub-rio sessions as "virtual desktops".  However
> it occurs to me that simple raising of each session above the other is
> sufficient.
>
> Oh well... at least I tried to do something :-)
>
> Dave
>

Re: [9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[Ronald G Minnich]

David Leimbach wrote:
> I did find one situation where hiding is useful... and that's when
> I've taken up all of my root rio's desktop space with this sidebar
> strip, and want to quickly hide winwatch itself.


um, so, what was this patch? I lost track.

ron

Re: Re: [9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[David Leimbach]

On 7/20/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> David Leimbach wrote:
> > I did find one situation where hiding is useful... and that's when
> > I've taken up all of my root rio's desktop space with this sidebar
> > strip, and want to quickly hide winwatch itself.
>
>
> um, so, what was this patch? I lost track.
>
> ron
>

All it does is change winwatch behavior so that if you right click a
label for a window that's hidden, the window unhides. If the window is
not hidden, it hides it.

I'm starting to believe I don't need this functionality now... (though
if I'm opening up other "sub-rio's" it's convenient to be able to hide
windows as well as raise them with winwatch).  I started feeling like
it wasn't so important once I saw:

/n/sources/patch/sorry/ww-hideunhide

This patch was a little better than mine in terms of error checking...
the differences are minor.

Russ commented that he didn't think it was necessary to have such
behavior in his notes and I think I'm starting to agree.

Dave

Re: Re: Re: [9fans] Re: OOps.. submitted a redundant patch

[David Leimbach]

On 7/20/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> > David Leimbach wrote:
> > > I did find one situation where hiding is useful... and that's when
> > > I've taken up all of my root rio's desktop space with this sidebar
> > > strip, and want to quickly hide winwatch itself.
> >
> >
> > um, so, what was this patch? I lost track.

The path to mine is /n/sources/patch/winwatch-hide-unhide-toggle



> >
> > ron
> >
>
> All it does is change winwatch behavior so that if you right click a
> label for a window that's hidden, the window unhides. If the window is
> not hidden, it hides it.
>
> I'm starting to believe I don't need this functionality now... (though
> if I'm opening up other "sub-rio's" it's convenient to be able to hide
> windows as well as raise them with winwatch).  I started feeling like
> it wasn't so important once I saw:
>
> /n/sources/patch/sorry/ww-hideunhide
>
> This patch was a little better than mine in terms of error checking...
> the differences are minor.
>
> Russ commented that he didn't think it was necessary to have such
> behavior in his notes and I think I'm starting to agree.
>
> Dave
>