2014-11-05 11:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>: > On Wednesday 05 November 2014 10:37:59 Sebastian Kügler wrote: >> >> Otherwise, we're waiting for the ECM to be merged? The RR has a shipit, so I >> guess that can go in, and we can proceed with merging other patches in. Do >> you need any help with that? > > pointing out the second obvious: we have a dependency problem for merging > all the patches. The protocols are in my opinion not yet in a state that we > can submit to ABI stability for all of KF5 - after all it's a new technology > for us and we have to be careful. Then obviously KWayland cannot become a > framework with the current compiler requirements which in turn means that > KWindowSystem cannot depend on it. This needs thinking and discussion on > the framework mailing list. At the moment I don't consider KWayland as suited > for a framework yet.
KWayland shouldn't be considered a framework (not yet), it would only slow development down. After a Plasma meeting I thought we didn't want KWayland to be a framework just yet :) > There were a few showstoppers in the review request for KWayland last time I > looked at it. E.g. it implied a Qt 5.4 dependency due to using QtWayland. That > is currently not possible and we need a better solution for combining with > QtWayland. The patches are in that area too hackish as the API becomes not > obvious which parts need to be used with QtWayland and which with > KWayland's own wayland connection. And the patches were completely > missing unit tests when I last looked at them which is a must requirement for > getting anything into KWayland. > > Overall I don't want us to rush things. There is no problem with these things > taking time and living in a branch. We have not won anything if we hurry now > to notice we created a problem in a few months. As said: I think submitting > the protocols at this point in time to stability is too early. It's good that > we have the protocols, but we need to give them a few more rounds of review > and thinking. We also should look at them and think about what makes sense > to upstream into Wayland. Once we are 100 % sure that these protocols are > the way to go, we can submit to them. Some issues with the protocol might go un-noticed until someone uses them during the Plasma port. We had a first round of discussion and that lead to good results but the protocols evolved a little bit after that when I worked on plasmashell. The last version can be found in KWayland repository, the files are: - plasma-effects.xml - plasma-shell.xml - plasma-window-management.xml Having a lot of patches living in personal branches makes thing too hard and slow IMHO. During this phase KWayland should not be considered a framework giving us the freedom to modify protocols should we need it and then gradually merge patches on the other repositories as soon as they are ready. -- Out of the box experience http://www.maui-project.org/ _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
