09:55 <ifreund> I've had an idea, instead of merging rwm to master I think I'll rename rwm to main, make that the default branch, and delete master

09:56 <ifreund> Then I get to keep linear history without a terrible rebase

09:56 <ifreund> and all the commits along the way will still compile in theory

09:57 <vyivel> keeping master with an extra readme commit like "hey we on main now" would probably be safer

09:58 <ifreund> true

09:59 <lordmzte> What about all the stuff done on master?

10:00 <ifreund> lordmzte: there's not that much on master but not rwm that's relevant, the relevant bits will get cherry-picked from 0.3.x

10:00 <lordmzte> I see.

10:00 <ifreund> some already have been

10:01 <ifreund> I made 0.3.x the default branch on codeberg to see if anyone notices

10:01 <ifreund> it is also the only branch accepting patches at the moment, so that makes sense I guess

11:38 <FireFly> or renaming master to riverwm-old or something like that, perhaps..

11:38 <FireFly> (mostly to retain the old-riverwm history in a nice way)

12:30 <TheAnachron> is there a tldr for those wanting to know about the current state of river? like where are we, what is currently being done and what needs to be done before we can package it?

12:37 <TheAnachron> ifreund havent heard of ploopy before, thanks for the suggestion.

12:39 <TheAnachron> the knob looks tempting to me, though my macro pad already has one...

12:42 <ifreund> FireFly: the 0.3.x is that

12:43 <ifreund> the 0.3.x branch I mean

12:43 <FireFly> fair, yeah, that's enough then as far as I'm concerned

12:44 <ifreund> TheAnachron: river 0.4.0 is a long ways away still, there's now a bit better tracking of things in the issue tracker with some milestones for landing the rwm branch in main and 0.4.0

12:44 <ifreund> but that todo list is by no means exhaustive

12:45 <ifreund> I intend landing the rwm branch in main to mark a first attempt at protocol stability and want to get all the possible breaking things done before then

12:45 <TheAnachron> Okay, so currently we're in a Phase where "old river" (does it have a specific name)?) is in bugfix only and the next one still miles ahead?

12:45 <ifreund> at that point I'll write a blog post introducing the protocol and with more details regarding the future

12:46 <ifreund> TheAnachron: yep that's right, I'll rebrand river 0.3.x as river-classic at some point

12:46 <ifreund> and maintain that in feature-freeze mode for a while even after 0.4.0 is out

13:01 <FireFly> I guess from what I've observed here, "rwm" for the new one and "river(wm)" for the old/current stable one seems like pretty useful names already

13:06 <ifreund> FireFly: river 0.4.0 will be river, river 0.3.x will be continued in a separate repo as river-classic

13:07 <ifreund> rwm stands for river window management which is the name of the protocol not the compositor

13:07 <FireFly> ah, oki

13:07 <FireFly> I see

15:04 <pkap> Is there an example client that uses XdgPopup?

15:06 <pkap> Do the dialogue popups in Qt or GTK use this probably so I can use any of these?

17:44 <vyivel> pkap: yes

21:46 <ifreund> pkap: the modal dialogs are toplevels with a patent set genrally

21:46 <ifreund> right click menus, drop down menus, hover tootips, etc are all xdg-popups

21:47 <ifreund> s/patent/parent/