Re: [hackers] [slock] Fix my previous commit and some light refactoring

From: Markus Teich <>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:52:56 +0200

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.

Received on Fri Sep 02 2016 - 11:52:56 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Sep 02 2016 - 12:00:54 CEST