On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:30 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:06 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > >> On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 17:11 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > >> > >> > Is there a reason why you didn't commit these patches? > >> > >> Owen hasn't tested the second patch yet. Also, it's nice to see if > >> anyone has comments on the patch before they hit master. > > > > I've tested both patches and they work well as far as I can tell. > > > > (Of course, proving that they don't cause obscure problems elsewhere is > > a lot harder than proving that they fix the problems they were designed > > to fix.) > > > > Also, they make sense to me as patches. > > > > I guess I might quibble with the comment in the second one which makes > > it sounds like this has to do with exotic guffaw scrolling manipulations > > or something. > > > > /* No matter what happened to the parent window bits because of window > > * and bit gravity, the bits of redirected children are not affected > > * so no exposures are needed > > */ > > > > ? > > > > - Owen > > > > > > > > If keithp wrote that comment, than perhaps he could improve the > comment, because it's not very obvious to me what window gravity does.
Although I didn't make it clear ... the above is a suggestion for an improvement, the original comment is: /* * Redirected windows are not affected by parent window * gravity manipulations */ - Owen _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg