On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:11:39PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
> destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
> finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
>
> But this poses o
Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
But this poses other interoperation problems, drag destinations might
be requesting several
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:39:20PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hi Pekka!,
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:31:16 +0100
> > Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> >
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >> > Hi again,
Hi Pekka!,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:31:16 +0100
> Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> > I was reading an E-mail in another thread that brought up different
>> > ty
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:31:16 +0100
Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I was reading an E-mail in another thread that brought up different
> > types of backward compatibility promises, and it made me think of a
> > potentia
Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
But this poses other interoperation problems, drag destinations might
be requesting several
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:05:35PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:46:37PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015
Hey,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I was reading an E-mail in another thread that brought up different
> types of backward compatibility promises, and it made me think of a
> potential issue. I'm commenting inline close to the relevant change this
> patch int
Hey,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:46:37PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:33:08PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>> >> Hey!,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec
Hi again,
I was reading an E-mail in another thread that brought up different
types of backward compatibility promises, and it made me think of a
potential issue. I'm commenting inline close to the relevant change this
patch introduces.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wr
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:46:37PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:33:08PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> >> Hey!,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 22, 201
Hey,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:33:08PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>> Hey!,
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>> >> Currently, there's no means f
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:33:08PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hey!,
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> >> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
> >> destination is actuall
Hey!,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
>> destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
>> finalizing it after the firs
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
> destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
> finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
>
> But this poses o
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:33:32AM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
> destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
> finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
>
> But this poses o
Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
But this poses other interoperation problems, drag destinations might
be requesting several
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:56:22PM +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
> destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
> finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
>
> But this poses o
Currently, there's no means for the DnD origin to know whether the
destination is actually finished with the DnD transaction, short of
finalizing it after the first transfer finishes, or leaking it forever.
But this poses other interoperation problems, drag destinations might
be requesting several
19 matches
Mail list logo
