On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5 February 2015 at 08:58, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > If a client calls xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface on a surface that is already
> > an xdg_surface wold, prior to this patch, succeed, but cause weston to
> > crash later when trying to con
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:58:05PM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> If a client calls xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface on a surface that is already
> an xdg_surface wold, prior to this patch, succeed, but cause weston to
s/wold/would/
> crash later when trying to configure. This patch instead sends a role
>
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 01:11:54PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5 February 2015 at 08:58, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > If a client calls xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface on a surface that is already
> > an xdg_surface wold, prior to this patch, succeed, but cause weston to
> > crash later when tryi
Hi,
On 5 February 2015 at 08:58, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> If a client calls xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface on a surface that is already
> an xdg_surface wold, prior to this patch, succeed, but cause weston to
> crash later when trying to configure. This patch instead sends a role
> error to the client com
If a client calls xdg_shell.get_xdg_surface on a surface that is already
an xdg_surface wold, prior to this patch, succeed, but cause weston to
crash later when trying to configure. This patch instead sends a role
error to the client complaining that it already is an xdg_surface.
Note that .._set_
