On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:12:10PM -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > We now carry the shell_client around with each shell_surface. This is
> much
> > more reliable than tacitly assuming that there is only one wl_shell or
> > xdg_shell in
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:12:10PM -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> We now carry the shell_client around with each shell_surface. This is much
> more reliable than tacitly assuming that there is only one wl_shell or
> xdg_shell instance bound to a particular wl_client. In particular, weston
> would
We now carry the shell_client around with each shell_surface. This is much
more reliable than tacitly assuming that there is only one wl_shell or
xdg_shell instance bound to a particular wl_client. In particular, weston
would crash when a client bound to both wl_shell and xdg_shell even if it
onl
