A couple of composite fixes from Owen Taylor
otaylor at redhat.com
Fri Sep 19 14:31:09 PDT 2008
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
More information about the xorg