User talk:V.petithory

Hello, I noticed you made an edit here, and I'd just like to get your reasoning behind why you reverted the previous description I had placed. Just so this conversation can be short I'll just state my criticism's up front of the current description.

- Your initial program description calling it "simple and flexible" is subjective and not worth mentioning, more so given that you're the program's author.

- I'm not sure why you state your program "concatenates i3bar blocks", because when strictly interpreted it doesn't. i3bar doesn't have an output, your program does.

- I suppose you could say your program supports "signal forwarding", but it seems too vague. This is why I had it changed to "forwarding of interrupts (e.g. SIGUSR1)"

All in all, the changes I made to your edit were done for consistancy with the other i3status alternatives, as well as making the description as generic and concise as possible, so I hope you understand why I'd like to revert the most recent edit. Pyroh (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyroh. First of all, sorry if I don't answer with proper formatting in this "Talk page".

I'll answer your points one by one:

- I can agree with calling it "simple" being subjective, but not "flexible". Else same can be said with all other programs of this page calling themselves extensible and whatnot.

- Maybe by looking for brevity, the wording became confusing. The program actually concatenates JSON streams which are each a representation of an i3bar block; those streams coming from multiples sources; the whole thing being forwarded to an i3bar.

- I don't know the term "interrupt", only signals.

Lastly, i don't mind edits on the description, despite I took time to find the proper wording. I felt the last addition became misleading, that's why I choosed to edit it.

V.petithory (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response, that cleared up any confusion I had. Pyroh (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]