On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 18:02:35 +0200
Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for reviewing.
>
> Am 03.10.2017 09:02:03 schrieb(en) Pekka Paalanen:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200
> > Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
> >
> > > Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:14:32 -0400
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:02:03AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200
> > Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
> >
> > > Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage request
> > > is necessary. Ex
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:02:03AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200
> Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
>
> > Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage request
> > is necessary. Explicitly declare it implementation defined behaviour if the
> > wl_su
Hi,
thanks for reviewing.
Am 03.10.2017 09:02:03 schrieb(en) Pekka Paalanen:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200
Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
> Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage
request
> is necessary. Explicitly declare it implementation defined
behaviour if the
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:39:56 +0200
Mahdi Khanalizadeh wrote:
> Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage request
> is necessary. Explicitly declare it implementation defined behaviour if the
> wl_surface.damage request is omitted to give the compositor some leeway
> on how
Add an explanation for wl_surface.attach why a wl_surface.damage request
is necessary. Explicitly declare it implementation defined behaviour if the
wl_surface.damage request is omitted to give the compositor some leeway
on how it handles attaches.
Signed-off-by: Mahdi Khanalizadeh
---
protocol/