On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:50 AM Simon Ser wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 3:24 PM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea to break Xwayland completely on
> > compositors that don't implement wl_surface version 4 or greater.
> >
> > It would make sense to bind wl_composi
On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 18:25 +, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 3:24 PM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea to break Xwayland completely on
> > compositors that don't implement wl_surface version 4 or greater.
> >
> > It would make sense to bind wl_compo
On Monday, November 5, 2018 3:24 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to break Xwayland completely on
> compositors that don't implement wl_surface version 4 or greater.
>
> It would make sense to bind wl_compositor min(version, 4).
This is intentional. I think it's reasonab
On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:58:26 +
Simon Ser wrote:
> wl_surface_damage can be unoptimal on some compositors, damaging the whole
> buffer instead of the provided region. wl_surface_damage_buffer is preferred.
> Since xwayland doesn't set a surface offset, scale or transform, surface
> damage is e
wl_surface_damage can be unoptimal on some compositors, damaging the whole
buffer instead of the provided region. wl_surface_damage_buffer is preferred.
Since xwayland doesn't set a surface offset, scale or transform, surface
damage is effectively equivalent to buffer damage.
Signed-off-by: Simon
