[PATCH weston 1/6] protocol: improve sub-surface spec wording

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:20:48 -0400
Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:46:03PM +0300, ppaalanen at gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> > 
> > Mention, that sub-surfaces are not clipped to the parent.
> > Be more accurate on surface commit vs. apply state.
> > Mention the initial stacking order.
> 
> That looks good, applied.  I can't help thinking that it should
> asynchronous instead of desynchronized.  To desynchronize means to
> bring something out of synchronization, and desynchronized is
> something that has been brought out of synchronization.  Ae
> synchronous and asynchronous better names for the states?

Perhaps. Inventing good names is one of the most difficult things
in design. I'd like to have completely different words here, not
just one or two character difference. I'm ok with changing them and
keeping them.

Thanks for merging so quickly!
- pq