[PATCH weston 2/2] input: Update to-be-restored focus when unfocused

[Derek Foreman]

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+git at 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+git at 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 (marked as "superseded" in patchwork) be applied on top to resolve the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