At 1259967480 time_t, Alex Cornejo wrote: > 1. Is there a reason why the change I am proposing is not quite as > simple as I imagine it will be.
Yes. It think it will be complicated if you try to do this on master or 3.4. > 2. Will a patch with these set of changes get pushed to master, > assuming it is correct (I guess only JD can answer this one). Yes, it'd be. > Now, at least at first sight it seems all of these issues would > disappear if the systray_init/systray_cleanup functions where called > when the systray widget was created/destroyed instead of calling them > when awesome stars/stops. Make sense, but you need to make sure that systray widget is only instantied once by protocol/physical screen. This may be a little more code than you expect. At least, that's something that will be easy to do and that I might implement in a4. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou // ᐰ <[email protected]> http://julien.danjou.info // 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD // Anna Molly! Anna Molly! Anna Molly!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
