On 2018-08-16 02:33 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote: > On 8/16/18 5:24 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:55:42PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote: >>> On 2018-08-02 03:32 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote: >>>> On 8/2/18 10:29 AM, Quentin Glidic wrote: >>>>> From: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+...@sardemff7.net> >>>>> >>>>> If we start a special (grabbing) client when Weston is unfocused, it >>>>> would lose focus when coming back to Weston. >>>>> >>>>> A first attempt to fix this was >>>>> 85d55540cb64bf97a08b40f79dc66843f8295d3b >>>>> but it messed with VT switching. >>>>> >>>>> This fix just updates the saved focus, so when Weston gets focused >>>>> back, >>>>> it will focus the correct client. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+...@sardemff7.net> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the delay, I hoped I could make a Gitlab MR but sadly it >>>>> didn’t happen yet. :-) >>>>> >>>>> I think this patch won’t conflict with VT switching, and it does >>>>> fix the >>>>> issue I had initially. >>> >>> I'm a bit confused as to where we're at with this. >>> >>> How did the reverted patch "mess with" or "conflict with" VT switching? >> >> it ended up always setting the keyboard focus to NULL on VT switch >> (due to >> how libinput devices are handled), so on vt switch back you had no focus. >> >>> Is it intended that these two patches be applied, and then Jamey's patch >>> (marked as "superseded" in patchwork) be applied on top to resolve the >>> loss of focus on VT switch away/back? >> >> AIUI, these two need supersede Jamey's patchl but I'm not 100% sure on >> that, >> sorry. >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >>> >>> Thought this might be important to land before the release, but it's not >>> terribly clear what it actually fixes. I'd assumed it was the VT switch >>> thing, but that remains unresolved. >>> >>> Help? :) > Sorry for the confusion. This (second) patch is a cleaner fix of the > issue that was “fixed” by the reverted commit. Then on top of it, you’ll > have to apply Jamey’s patch, which is an independent issue+fix (which > the old fix conflicted with). I’m not sure why it was marked > superseeded, maybe Patchwork detecting my patch as a reply? >
Thanks guys. Due to hilariously misconfigured inbox filters I didn't catch these replies until today. Sorry. I think the VT switch problem has been around for at least 1 release now, possibly a few more, so I think it's ok to release with the long standing (mostly cosmetic) bug, and deal with these fixes shortly after. Thanks again, Derek _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
