Jonas Ådahl wrote:
For example one could queue the operations until commit, having a
subsequent request replace a previous one, instead of executing
them immediately relying on commit to take a snapshot.
It could also be read as a subsequent request that now replaces a
previous request to be in
Hey,
This came up during the mutter implementation. See my questions here for
what prompted this. I found the proposed phrasing a bit confusing as well...
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=705502#c16
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:20:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:20:17PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi Jonas
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:27:07 +0100
> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
> > Clarify some semantics of wl_subsurface.place_below and
> > wl_subsurface.place_below that were not specified.
>
> Below and below. ;-)
>
> >
> > Signed
Hi Jonas
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:27:07 +0100
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> Clarify some semantics of wl_subsurface.place_below and
> wl_subsurface.place_below that were not specified.
Below and below. ;-)
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> Implementing support for sub-surfaces in mutte
Clarify some semantics of wl_subsurface.place_below and
wl_subsurface.place_below that were not specified.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl
---
Hi,
Implementing support for sub-surfaces in mutter we ran in to some
unspecified behaviour in the subsurface placement protocol.
I have documented what I u
