Difference between revisions of "Talk:Qutebrowser"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Add wrapper script for dwb-like session handling: Follow-up questions)
(Add wrapper script for dwb-like session handling: Clarified)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
::I've added the script. But now I'm not sure if it would've been better to only add a link to the script instead of inlining it (space?). Also, I'm not sure if the wording is right, or too verbose (this is my first "major" contribution to this wiki). --[[User:Ayekat|Ayekat]] ([[User talk:Ayekat|talk]]) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 
::I've added the script. But now I'm not sure if it would've been better to only add a link to the script instead of inlining it (space?). Also, I'm not sure if the wording is right, or too verbose (this is my first "major" contribution to this wiki). --[[User:Ayekat|Ayekat]] ([[User talk:Ayekat|talk]]) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::Link to the original; that way it will always be up-to-date. Also, all the explanatory material belongs in the README, not here. People wanting to understand what the script does will read it on Github. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:02, 5 February 2017

Add wrapper script for dwb-like session handling

I've recently written and started using a "wrapper" script around qutebrowser that uses --basedir and some symlinking from /run to set up separate directories for data/cache/runtime files, while sharing the same config file location, in order to somewhat mimic the behaviour of dwb when it comes to sessions. The script is available here. The-Compiler seems to focus more on making the WebEngine backend more mature (see GitHub issue #572 -- and I fully support that), so it does not seem like that behaviour is going to be added to qutebrowser itself anytime soon, yet I can imagine that especially ex-dwb users might appreciate it. Are there any objections against adding that script to the "Tips and tricks" section of the article? --Ayekat (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Jasonwryan (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added the script. But now I'm not sure if it would've been better to only add a link to the script instead of inlining it (space?). Also, I'm not sure if the wording is right, or too verbose (this is my first "major" contribution to this wiki). --Ayekat (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Link to the original; that way it will always be up-to-date. Also, all the explanatory material belongs in the README, not here. People wanting to understand what the script does will read it on Github. Jasonwryan (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)