A couple of composite fixes from Owen Taylor

[Owen Taylor]

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:30 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Owen Taylor <otaylor at redhat.com> 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