On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:15:23 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 14/02/17 06:05 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:06:24 -0600
> > Derek Foreman wrote:
> >
> >> This documents what has apparently been the case for ages - attaching a
> >> NULL
> >> buffer does *not* always remove
On 14/02/17 06:05 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:06:24 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
This documents what has apparently been the case for ages - attaching a NULL
buffer does *not* always remove the surface content, rather it has behaviour
determined by the surface role (which ma
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:06:24 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> This documents what has apparently been the case for ages - attaching a NULL
> buffer does *not* always remove the surface content, rather it has behaviour
> determined by the surface role (which may be documented elsewhere).
>
> Signed-o
This documents what has apparently been the case for ages - attaching a NULL
buffer does *not* always remove the surface content, rather it has behaviour
determined by the surface role (which may be documented elsewhere).
Signed-off-by: Derek Foreman
---
protocol/wayland.xml | 13 +++--