Heyho Quentin, Quentin Rameau wrote: > What I mean is if it makes sense to have a timeout in one case, it's > valable for all other cases too. > Also that's a (maximum) timeout, not a strict delay. So when nothing > gets in the way of grabbing input, slock is automatically started > anyway without any waiting.
After some reconsidering, I merged the patch as you proposed it. The other three are merged as well. Thanks for the contribution. --Markus
