Re: How invasive is multihead patch?

On Jan 19, 2008 1:13 AM, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy wp pl> wrote:
> Andrea Vettorello said:     (by the date of Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:57:27 +0100)
> > On Jan 17, 2008 1:17 AM, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy wp pl> wrote:
> > > ?
> > Maybe GDK/GTK alpha handling was fixed in the meantime?
> Hello,
> thanks for your comment.
> Now I need opinion about the multihead patch, please see:
> My problem is that I am in no position to judge how bad or invasive
> this patch is. Or maybe it is plainly fixing a coding mistake (which
> I can't recognize here)?
> I have dualhead also, and I can reproduce the bad behaviour described
> in there. So I can imagine how annoying it can be for someone who
> uses this placement method (centered/centered-on-parent).

I don't have a Xinerama setup and i haven't tried once to simulate it
via Xephyr.
If i understand correctly the august 2006 post, in some circumstances
when you are in the second head the "centered" placement isn't
honored, right?

> So this is why I'm a bit inclied to apply this patch. But there is no
> feedback from you on this matter. And I don't want to spoil sawfish out
> of my ignorance (just because I like dualhead setups) so I need your
> opinion.
> Even if you don't have dualhead - look at the code: Is it dirty or not?

Seems ok to me, but i don't yet consider myself an expert, so be advised. ^__^

If it's applied, i think we should update the description for
"current-head-dimensions" and "current-head-offset" to keep track that
the input arguments are slightly changed (not a big deal). If you want
i can rework the patch to include the changes.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]