On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Pokorny
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/3/23 Jerome Glisse :
>>> How would you transmit transformations that are not representable
>>> by a matrix? Nothing says we are limited to matrices, that is also
>>> just a special case. Or
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:41:00 -0400
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:09:48 -0400
>> > Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> >
&g
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:09:48 -0400
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:32 AM, RenoX wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Jason Ekstrand
>> > wrote:
; Part of the problem is that you don't want to try and make your
>> animations subpixel-perfect because that would require a lot of
>> round-trips to make it right.
>
> And you(Jerome Glisse) replied:
>> It doesn't add more roundtrip, client will get next matrix like
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what I think of all this surface transform
> passing. I'll get back to that once I get a chance to think about it.
> Part of the problem is that you don't want to try and make your
> animations subpixel-perfect becaus
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
>>> For sub-pixel rendering the solution i have been thinking for a while
>>> but still haven't had time to prototype on weston, is to have weston
>>> send the transformation matrix to the client have the client render
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:52:55 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> The other option would be to ignore those output properties, and
>> the compositor would manage something with an output agnostic
>> buffer. In that case, we would remove th
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Tom Cooksey wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> 2011/4/20 Tom Cooksey :
>> > So while I agree re-inventing something just for the sake of it is bad,
>> > that's not what's happening.
>>
>> > In fact, I think there's a good chance T
2011/4/6 Michal Suchanek :
> 2011/4/5 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> what is the plan for screensave/screenlocker support in wayland?
>>>
>>> The support in X is a fail in several ways.
>>
>> It sure is. The plan for Wayland is tha
