New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added window methods to request and to check focus #525

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@Foaly
Contributor

Foaly commented Jan 12, 2014

Alright I collected all the fixes for issue #518 in this pull request. The patches for Windows and Linux are tested and working. The Mac part is the only thing missing.

Foaly added some commits Jan 12, 2014

@Two-Tone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Two-Tone

Two-Tone Jan 31, 2014

I could simplify a bit of my event code if this gets added. I can't think of a reason not to add this.

Two-Tone commented Jan 31, 2014

I could simplify a bit of my event code if this gets added. I can't think of a reason not to add this.

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Feb 2, 2014

Contributor

I am glad to hear that, but sadly the OSX part is still missing. I have an idea how to implement it, but I don't have a machine to test on. Marco (he usually does the Mac parts) is busy until April.
So we either have to wait or hope that somebody else writes the Mac part in the meantime.

Contributor

Foaly commented Feb 2, 2014

I am glad to hear that, but sadly the OSX part is still missing. I have an idea how to implement it, but I don't have a machine to test on. Marco (he usually does the Mac parts) is busy until April.
So we either have to wait or hope that somebody else writes the Mac part in the meantime.

@Two-Tone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Two-Tone

Two-Tone Feb 2, 2014

What about virtualizing OSX?

Two-Tone commented Feb 2, 2014

What about virtualizing OSX?

@vonj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vonj

vonj Feb 2, 2014

In some jurisdictions illegal. Also pretty hard to get right technically.

Two-Tone notifications@github.com skrev:

What about virtualizing OSX?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

vonj commented Feb 2, 2014

In some jurisdictions illegal. Also pretty hard to get right technically.

Two-Tone notifications@github.com skrev:

What about virtualizing OSX?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

@Two-Tone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Two-Tone

Two-Tone Feb 2, 2014

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal

Two-Tone commented Feb 2, 2014

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal

@MarioLiebisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarioLiebisch

MarioLiebisch Feb 2, 2014

Member

Not in general, but you'll first have to get an official image with license (i.e. buy one) and then you'll have to get it to install, which you can't unless it's an official Mac (I don't think any virtualization solution provides the proper "hardware", and emulating that might yet again be legally tricky or impossible).

Member

MarioLiebisch commented Feb 2, 2014

Not in general, but you'll first have to get an official image with license (i.e. buy one) and then you'll have to get it to install, which you can't unless it's an official Mac (I don't think any virtualization solution provides the proper "hardware", and emulating that might yet again be legally tricky or impossible).

@Two-Tone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Two-Tone

Two-Tone Feb 2, 2014

It can be done in VirtualBox. Regardless, if the argument is about breaking the EULA then rest assured as that isn't illegal. It's an agreement, not a law.

Two-Tone commented Feb 2, 2014

It can be done in VirtualBox. Regardless, if the argument is about breaking the EULA then rest assured as that isn't illegal. It's an agreement, not a law.

@vonj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vonj

vonj Feb 2, 2014

Well, at least Apple wants to make it so. In their terms, they state that your
license of OSX may only be run on "real" hardware, produced by Apple. This is
obviously not enforceable in countries with sane laws.

On February 2, 2014 at 11:56 AM Two-Tone notifications@github.com wrote:

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

vonj commented Feb 2, 2014

Well, at least Apple wants to make it so. In their terms, they state that your
license of OSX may only be run on "real" hardware, produced by Apple. This is
obviously not enforceable in countries with sane laws.

On February 2, 2014 at 11:56 AM Two-Tone notifications@github.com wrote:

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

@Ixrec

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ixrec

Ixrec Feb 2, 2014

More importantly, it's extremely hard to get a virtual Mac to actually run
properly. My Mac-in-a-VirtualBox has zero audio, along with some weird
glitches, so I'd never feel qualified to submit an SFML patch on the basis
of what works inside that thing.

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:42 PM, vonj notifications@github.com wrote:

Well, at least Apple wants to make it so. In their terms, they state that
your
license of OSX may only be run on "real" hardware, produced by Apple. This
is
obviously not enforceable in countries with sane laws.

On February 2, 2014 at 11:56 AM Two-Tone notifications@github.com wrote:

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/525#issuecomment-33899414
.

Ixrec commented Feb 2, 2014

More importantly, it's extremely hard to get a virtual Mac to actually run
properly. My Mac-in-a-VirtualBox has zero audio, along with some weird
glitches, so I'd never feel qualified to submit an SFML patch on the basis
of what works inside that thing.

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:42 PM, vonj notifications@github.com wrote:

Well, at least Apple wants to make it so. In their terms, they state that
your
license of OSX may only be run on "real" hardware, produced by Apple. This
is
obviously not enforceable in countries with sane laws.

On February 2, 2014 at 11:56 AM Two-Tone notifications@github.com wrote:

I've never heard of virtualization being illegal


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#525 (comment)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/525#issuecomment-33899414
.

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Feb 4, 2014

Contributor

I was able to find somebody, who is willing to help me out with a mac. I haven't really done anything in objective c before, but I'll give my best!
Unfortunately I'm writing exams right now, but I'll give it a try in 3 weeks.

Contributor

Foaly commented Feb 4, 2014

I was able to find somebody, who is willing to help me out with a mac. I haven't really done anything in objective c before, but I'll give my best!
Unfortunately I'm writing exams right now, but I'll give it a try in 3 weeks.

@sbenitezb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sbenitezb

sbenitezb Feb 5, 2014

I can do the Mac testing.

sbenitezb commented Feb 5, 2014

I can do the Mac testing.

@archshift

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@archshift

archshift Feb 5, 2014

I also own a Mac that I can test on

archshift commented Feb 5, 2014

I also own a Mac that I can test on

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Feb 5, 2014

Contributor

Awesome. I will post news here as soon as I get around to do it.

Contributor

Foaly commented Feb 5, 2014

Awesome. I will post news here as soon as I get around to do it.

@Bromeon Bromeon added this to the 2.2 milestone Feb 17, 2014

@Bromeon Bromeon self-assigned this Feb 17, 2014

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon Feb 17, 2014

Member

It feels weird that requestFocus() is const-qualified, even if it's possible to implement it technically. You would expect that by getting a const-reference to a sf::Window, you can't change any of its properties, including its relation to other windows.

Member

Bromeon commented Feb 17, 2014

It feels weird that requestFocus() is const-qualified, even if it's possible to implement it technically. You would expect that by getting a const-reference to a sf::Window, you can't change any of its properties, including its relation to other windows.

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Feb 26, 2014

Contributor

That indeed feels a little weird. I'll change it, when I implement the Mac part.

Contributor

Foaly commented Feb 26, 2014

That indeed feels a little weird. I'll change it, when I implement the Mac part.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon Apr 19, 2014

Member

@Foaly, are there already news on this pull request?

Member

Bromeon commented Apr 19, 2014

@Foaly, are there already news on this pull request?

@kimci86

View changes

Show outdated Hide outdated include/SFML/Window/Window.hpp
@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Apr 23, 2014

Contributor

Hi there! First of all sorry for the long delay. My university started again recently and our professors seem too really give us a hard time this semester...
Anyway. I tryed to implement the OSX part, but I failed, because I didn't really understand how the C++ and the Objective-C classes work together. Due to my limited time I couldn't investigate further. By now it's April though, so I will get in touch with @mantognini again and see if he has some time.
About the const-qualifier, I'll change that as soon as possible.

Contributor

Foaly commented Apr 23, 2014

Hi there! First of all sorry for the long delay. My university started again recently and our professors seem too really give us a hard time this semester...
Anyway. I tryed to implement the OSX part, but I failed, because I didn't really understand how the C++ and the Objective-C classes work together. Due to my limited time I couldn't investigate further. By now it's April though, so I will get in touch with @mantognini again and see if he has some time.
About the const-qualifier, I'll change that as soon as possible.

@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini
Member

mantognini commented Apr 23, 2014

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Apr 23, 2014

Contributor

Awesome thanks! That was really quick!
I will try to put everything together this week.

Contributor

Foaly commented Apr 23, 2014

Awesome thanks! That was really quick!
I will try to put everything together this week.

Maximilian Wagenbach and others added some commits Apr 27, 2014

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly Apr 27, 2014

Contributor

OK! I rebased the branch to current master, applyed Marcos OSX patch and made requestFocus() non-const. Everything should be fine now.
But of course just as I find time to work on this again, I messed up something my compiler and nothing compiles... (I think I messed something up in the environment settings) So I can't do a final test.
I am pretty sure everything is correct, but could the person who reviews this, compile everything so that we don't end up with a broken master branch. Thanks!

Contributor

Foaly commented Apr 27, 2014

OK! I rebased the branch to current master, applyed Marcos OSX patch and made requestFocus() non-const. Everything should be fine now.
But of course just as I find time to work on this again, I messed up something my compiler and nothing compiles... (I think I messed something up in the environment settings) So I can't do a final test.
I am pretty sure everything is correct, but could the person who reviews this, compile everything so that we don't end up with a broken master branch. Thanks!

@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini

mantognini Apr 28, 2014

Member

Regarding OS X, everything seems fine.

Member

mantognini commented Apr 28, 2014

Regarding OS X, everything seems fine.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 1, 2014

Member

Maximilian Wagenbach and Foaly are the same authors, aren't they? It would also be nice to have a single commit per author. Could you squash all your commits (but not mantognini's) into one, with the author information you want to be listed?

Also, there are some whitespace inconsistences (you used CR, not CRLF for your changes on Windows).

I quickly tested it on Windows 8, and it seems to work so far. But the application is able to steal focus even if it's minimized... Shouldn't it trigger a yellow blinking task bar icon instead?

Member

Bromeon commented May 1, 2014

Maximilian Wagenbach and Foaly are the same authors, aren't they? It would also be nice to have a single commit per author. Could you squash all your commits (but not mantognini's) into one, with the author information you want to be listed?

Also, there are some whitespace inconsistences (you used CR, not CRLF for your changes on Windows).

I quickly tested it on Windows 8, and it seems to work so far. But the application is able to steal focus even if it's minimized... Shouldn't it trigger a yellow blinking task bar icon instead?

@MarioLiebisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarioLiebisch

MarioLiebisch May 1, 2014

Member

But the application is able to steal focus even if it's minimized... Shouldn't it trigger a yellow blinking task bar icon instead?

That's a system specific setting. Also, as far as I know, it depends on whether/how long the current foreground window has been active/idle. It's outside an application's scope to determine the behavior, so whatever SFML does right now is fine. You can't influence it (except specifically requesting the button to flash).

Member

MarioLiebisch commented May 1, 2014

But the application is able to steal focus even if it's minimized... Shouldn't it trigger a yellow blinking task bar icon instead?

That's a system specific setting. Also, as far as I know, it depends on whether/how long the current foreground window has been active/idle. It's outside an application's scope to determine the behavior, so whatever SFML does right now is fine. You can't influence it (except specifically requesting the button to flash).

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 1, 2014

Member

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Member

Bromeon commented May 1, 2014

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

@TankOs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TankOs

TankOs May 2, 2014

Member

I have squashed, reordered and rebased the commits here: https://github.com/LaurentGomila/SFML/commits/feature/window_focus

@Foaly, you have used different names, both as author and signed-off. The commit is now under Foaly, but I haven't touch the signed-off line. It would be nice if you can either change the commit author name or the signed-off line to what you are planning to use.

I tested the changes on Arch Linux, they work flawlessly. GOod work!

Member

TankOs commented May 2, 2014

I have squashed, reordered and rebased the commits here: https://github.com/LaurentGomila/SFML/commits/feature/window_focus

@Foaly, you have used different names, both as author and signed-off. The commit is now under Foaly, but I haven't touch the signed-off line. It would be nice if you can either change the commit author name or the signed-off line to what you are planning to use.

I tested the changes on Arch Linux, they work flawlessly. GOod work!

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly May 2, 2014

Contributor

Yeah that is my real name. I had to change my global git name recently, because my university server only accepts there own email adresses... Anyway it seems like I forgot to change my SFML settings back to Foaly. Sorry about that!

@TankOs if possible I'd like to stick with the name Foaly around here. But the different repos and branches got me confused. I don't really know where to change it and where to push to... Also how can I change the commit message of two commits ago? Could you do that for me? I would be nice if you can change the sign-off to Foaly < foaly.f@web.de > to keep everything consistent.

Other than everything should be fine, right? Sorry about the confusion with the name again!

Contributor

Foaly commented May 2, 2014

Yeah that is my real name. I had to change my global git name recently, because my university server only accepts there own email adresses... Anyway it seems like I forgot to change my SFML settings back to Foaly. Sorry about that!

@TankOs if possible I'd like to stick with the name Foaly around here. But the different repos and branches got me confused. I don't really know where to change it and where to push to... Also how can I change the commit message of two commits ago? Could you do that for me? I would be nice if you can change the sign-off to Foaly < foaly.f@web.de > to keep everything consistent.

Other than everything should be fine, right? Sorry about the confusion with the name again!

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 3, 2014

Member

Okay, the whole diff is visible here. I changed the signed-off to Foaly and fixed the CRLF inconsistency. @Foaly, tell me whether you meant it like this.

I also adapted the documentation, since the flashing taskbar seems not to be mandatory (according to my tests and MarioLiebisch's post above). Furthermore, I added \see so that each of the two functions refers to the other. All this is done in a separate commit.

@TankOs Are the signed-offs and commit names okay like this? If you want to be committer, just change it, but I didn't want to modify things under your name.

Member

Bromeon commented May 3, 2014

Okay, the whole diff is visible here. I changed the signed-off to Foaly and fixed the CRLF inconsistency. @Foaly, tell me whether you meant it like this.

I also adapted the documentation, since the flashing taskbar seems not to be mandatory (according to my tests and MarioLiebisch's post above). Furthermore, I added \see so that each of the two functions refers to the other. All this is done in a separate commit.

@TankOs Are the signed-offs and commit names okay like this? If you want to be committer, just change it, but I didn't want to modify things under your name.

@Foaly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Foaly

Foaly May 3, 2014

Contributor

Looks great to me!

Contributor

Foaly commented May 3, 2014

Looks great to me!

@TankOs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TankOs

TankOs May 3, 2014

Member

@Bromeon It's alright, thanks for adjusting. However next time it'd be nice to push to a separate branch. In case I drop my local branch/commits that would make them unrestorable.

Member

TankOs commented May 3, 2014

@Bromeon It's alright, thanks for adjusting. However next time it'd be nice to push to a separate branch. In case I drop my local branch/commits that would make them unrestorable.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 4, 2014

Member

You're totally right. Sorry ;)

Member

Bromeon commented May 4, 2014

You're totally right. Sorry ;)

@FRex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FRex

FRex May 10, 2014

Contributor

The XSetInputFocus (according to documentation on x.org) can only be called when window is viewable (which can be checked with XGetWindowAttributes).
Without that check it crashes on xfce 4.10 with
X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
Major opcode of failed request: 42 (X_SetInputFocus)

when window is rolled up, on other desktop or minimized.

Contributor

FRex commented May 10, 2014

The XSetInputFocus (according to documentation on x.org) can only be called when window is viewable (which can be checked with XGetWindowAttributes).
Without that check it crashes on xfce 4.10 with
X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
Major opcode of failed request: 42 (X_SetInputFocus)

when window is rolled up, on other desktop or minimized.

@TankOs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TankOs

TankOs May 12, 2014

Member

Thanks!

Member

TankOs commented May 12, 2014

Thanks!

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 13, 2014

Member

I changed the requestFocus() return type to void, provided empty implementations for Android and iOS, and checked whether the window is viewable according to @FRex' suggestion.

So far I have only tested on Windows. Does somebody use XFCE on Linux? I'd also be glad about OS X, I'm not even sure if I adapted the Objective C code correctly ;)

Member

Bromeon commented May 13, 2014

I changed the requestFocus() return type to void, provided empty implementations for Android and iOS, and checked whether the window is viewable according to @FRex' suggestion.

So far I have only tested on Windows. Does somebody use XFCE on Linux? I'd also be glad about OS X, I'm not even sure if I adapted the Objective C code correctly ;)

Bromeon referenced this pull request May 13, 2014

Added window methods to request and to check focus
Signed-off-by: Stefan Schindler <stefan@boxbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Jan Haller <bromeon@gmail.com>
@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini

mantognini May 13, 2014

Member

I'd also be glad about OS X, I'm not even sure if I adapted the Objective C code correctly ;)

Well, it does compile and do its duty, but the -(BOOL)requestFocus messages could be stripped off their return statement and become -(void)requestFocus. Do you want me to commit something regarding this?

Member

mantognini commented May 13, 2014

I'd also be glad about OS X, I'm not even sure if I adapted the Objective C code correctly ;)

Well, it does compile and do its duty, but the -(BOOL)requestFocus messages could be stripped off their return statement and become -(void)requestFocus. Do you want me to commit something regarding this?

@LaurentGomila

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LaurentGomila

LaurentGomila May 13, 2014

Member

Bad copy & paste in the iOS implementation ("WindowImplAndroid::").

Member

LaurentGomila commented May 13, 2014

Bad copy & paste in the iOS implementation ("WindowImplAndroid::").

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 13, 2014

Member

Thanks. @mantognini, is it good now? If not, don't hesitate to add another commit on top, we can clean up the commits in the end.

Here is the link again: https://github.com/LaurentGomila/SFML/compare/feature;window_focus

Member

Bromeon commented May 13, 2014

Thanks. @mantognini, is it good now? If not, don't hesitate to add another commit on top, we can clean up the commits in the end.

Here is the link again: https://github.com/LaurentGomila/SFML/compare/feature;window_focus

@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini

mantognini May 13, 2014

Member

almost: here and there the return type should be void and the return statement removed.

Member

mantognini commented May 13, 2014

almost: here and there the return type should be void and the return statement removed.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 13, 2014

Member

Ah, two different files :)
Done, thanks.

Out of curiosity, it looks like a lot of code is duplicated in the window and view controller. Is that necessary, or does avoiding it make things more complicated?

Member

Bromeon commented May 13, 2014

Ah, two different files :)
Done, thanks.

Out of curiosity, it looks like a lot of code is duplicated in the window and view controller. Is that necessary, or does avoiding it make things more complicated?

@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini

mantognini May 13, 2014

Member

Nothing else to add regarding OS X now. ;-)

Member

mantognini commented May 13, 2014

Nothing else to add regarding OS X now. ;-)

@mantognini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mantognini

mantognini May 23, 2014

Member

Out of curiosity, it looks like a lot of code is duplicated in the window and view controller. Is that necessary, or does avoiding it make things more complicated?

I didn't see that part of your message the other day apparently.

No it's not necessary. Having two different implementations was an old decision that made sense back then (code duplication was not frequent). Now, with more and more modifications on top of my initial code, this decision is not the «good» one anymore.

But changing everything is out of scope of this PR. It can wait after 2.2 is released. (I was planning to completely review my code anyway).

So, unless someone is unhappy with the code on feature/window_focus, I suggest closing this PR, and opening a new one based on feature/window_focus (rebased & squashed according to master). Then we can do a final review. :-)

I suspect merge conflict with OS X... so let me know if I can help.

Member

mantognini commented May 23, 2014

Out of curiosity, it looks like a lot of code is duplicated in the window and view controller. Is that necessary, or does avoiding it make things more complicated?

I didn't see that part of your message the other day apparently.

No it's not necessary. Having two different implementations was an old decision that made sense back then (code duplication was not frequent). Now, with more and more modifications on top of my initial code, this decision is not the «good» one anymore.

But changing everything is out of scope of this PR. It can wait after 2.2 is released. (I was planning to completely review my code anyway).

So, unless someone is unhappy with the code on feature/window_focus, I suggest closing this PR, and opening a new one based on feature/window_focus (rebased & squashed according to master). Then we can do a final review. :-)

I suspect merge conflict with OS X... so let me know if I can help.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 23, 2014

Member

But changing everything is out of scope of this PR.

Yes, of course. We can handle that later :)

So, unless someone is unhappy with the code on feature/window_focus , I suggest closing this PR, opening a new one based on feature/window_focus

I can cleanup the feature/window_focus branch and then make a pull request. There are still many small commits of mine that can be squashed together.

Member

Bromeon commented May 23, 2014

But changing everything is out of scope of this PR.

Yes, of course. We can handle that later :)

So, unless someone is unhappy with the code on feature/window_focus , I suggest closing this PR, opening a new one based on feature/window_focus

I can cleanup the feature/window_focus branch and then make a pull request. There are still many small commits of mine that can be squashed together.

@Bromeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bromeon

Bromeon May 24, 2014

Member

I cleaned up everything, rebased the branch onto master and created another pull request, so I'll close this one.

Member

Bromeon commented May 24, 2014

I cleaned up everything, rebased the branch onto master and created another pull request, so I'll close this one.

@Bromeon Bromeon closed this May 24, 2014

@Bromeon Bromeon added resolved and removed resolved labels May 24, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment