On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:37:34 -0700 Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > > I stick to my simplest suggestion: > > - inherit inhibition for sub-surfaces (by effectiveness, not by > > pretending the child has its own copy of the inhibitor to be > > evaluated separately) > > - do not forbid inhibitors based on surface role > > > > Otherwise we could discuss this to the death. > > We seem to already be doing this. > > Frankly, I don't care one way or the other whether subsurfaces is even > addressed in the protocol. I included it at your request, in hopes it > would make the protocol more landable, but honestly have never really > understood what the point of it is for - thus my pushing for getting a > tangible use case defined. If that use case is so far from validity, > then it really makes me think maybe this version of the protocol should > just sidestep the question of subsurface behavior and leave it as follow > up work, particularly after seeing the variety of questions and opinions > that have been popping up. > > But if you feel strongly that subsurfaces *must* be addressed in the > protocol, then let me request this - provide me with *exact* text to > paste in to replace that last paragraph. Ok, let's go your way. FWIW, Quentin agrees with you even though he didn't want to say it on the mailing list. I will not object ignoring sub-surfaces any longer. The concern raised in https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2016-March/027667.html is theoretical so far. You can adress them when they actually arise. Thanks, pq
pgpYy5jR9X9VE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
