08:06 <Guest15> Hello, is it possible to disable logging via config file? I'm talking about something like log-level=none

08:21 <dnkl> Guest15: no, that's currently not possible. But I think it's something we should add

08:25 <Guest15> Then, can I open an issue on codeberg?

08:46 <dnkl> sure

09:25 <milesrout> is it normal to get a flash of 640x480 (roughly, to my untrained eye) when foot starts?

09:54 <dnkl> milesrout: on Sway, yes

09:57 <milesrout> because sway's first xdg-toplevel configure event gives you 0,0 and you have to pick a size?

09:58 <dnkl> correct

09:58 <dnkl> and we then pick the size configured by you, defaulting to 700x500

10:05 <milesrout> ok so just default it to half the width of my monitor and full height and it'll be right 99% of the time. cheers dnkl :)

10:07 <dnkl> welcome :)

10:58 <ifreund> pretty sure river does the same thing with the 0,0 configure but doesn't render the new xdg-toplevel until it's the correct size to avoid the bad frame

10:58 <ifreund> I'm surprsied sway doesn't do the same

11:17 <dnkl> yup, there's a 0,0 configure on river too

11:20 <milesrout> it is officially recognised as a bug in sway https://github.com/swaywm/sway/issues/2176

11:28 <ifreund> yeah it's a bit of an abuse of the protocol, albeit something correct clients should handle fine

11:30 <ifreund> I'd like to refactor it away in river as well at some point, primarily because it has a slight negative impact on client startup speed

11:36 <milesrout> one of the points Drew makes in the issue is that it means that clients always specify a size, so if they later go floating they have a size already.

11:37 <milesrout> but surely you can just give the client the 0,0 when it goes floating and let it size itself? that seems like the right time, 'morally' speaking, for the program to make that decision.

12:01 <ifreund> milesrout: yes, sending 0,0 the first time a client is made floating would be the intended way to use the protocol

15:09 <cbb> dnkl: supporting "log-level" in foot.ini seems like it'd raise a few questions

15:10 <cbb> like e.g. what log level should be in effect while processing the lines in foot.ini before "log-level"?

15:12 <cbb> seems like it'd be a lot of churn for minimal gain

15:47 <dnkl> cbb: yeah, I was going to write down my thoughts in the codeberg issue, but haven't had time yet

15:48 <dnkl> I haven't abandoned the idea yet, but there will have to be some compromises

15:50 <cbb> dnkl: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/issues/1142#issuecomment-602068

15:51 <cbb> dnkl: not sure if you'll agree with that comment - I may have overlooked an easier solution

16:00 <dnkl> there's a lot of "depends" here... I'll try to comment later tonight

16:01 <cbb> dnkl: yeah that's true...

16:01 <cbb> I'm not in any rush ;) just thought I'd mention it while it's fresh in my mind