On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Martin Dietze<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, August 25, 2009, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > >> What people think? Is it preferred this way? >> Martin? gasol? > > I'll have to review the code later. Hopefully I get an automatic > build for the 'next' branch set up soon, so that we can just > install from there and see how it works :) > > Cheers, > > M'bert > > -- > ----------- / http://herbert.the-little-red-haired-girl.org / ------------- > =+= > Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
At first glance the patch looks alright, will have to wait until the weekend for me to get some time review it. Though I still believe that the check should include data.l[0] as well if (event->message_type == net_active_window && !WFLAGP(wwin, ignore_focus_across_wksp) || event->data.l[0] == 2) and not if (event->message_type == net_active_window && !WFLAGP(wwin, ignore_focus_across_wksp)) -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
