[PATCH wayland-protocols v3] Add screensaver idle inhibitor protocol
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 07:27:03 UTC 2016
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:37:34 -0700
Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:02:14PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > I stick to my simplest suggestion:
> > - inherit inhibition for sub-surfaces (by effectiveness, not by
> > pretending the child has its own copy of the inhibitor to be
> > evaluated separately)
> > - do not forbid inhibitors based on surface role
> > Otherwise we could discuss this to the death.
> We seem to already be doing this.
> Frankly, I don't care one way or the other whether subsurfaces is even
> addressed in the protocol. I included it at your request, in hopes it
> would make the protocol more landable, but honestly have never really
> understood what the point of it is for - thus my pushing for getting a
> tangible use case defined. If that use case is so far from validity,
> then it really makes me think maybe this version of the protocol should
> just sidestep the question of subsurface behavior and leave it as follow
> up work, particularly after seeing the variety of questions and opinions
> that have been popping up.
> But if you feel strongly that subsurfaces *must* be addressed in the
> protocol, then let me request this - provide me with *exact* text to
> paste in to replace that last paragraph.
Ok, let's go your way. FWIW, Quentin agrees with you even though he
didn't want to say it on the mailing list.
I will not object ignoring sub-surfaces any longer.
The concern raised in
is theoretical so far. You can adress them when they actually arise.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel