Re: Call for proposals for the next governance meeting
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:09:09AM -0400, Austin Shafer wrote: > Hi all, > > Not a protocol, but I think it would be good to discuss the possibility > of regular Wayland Governance meetings at a decided frequency. Currently > meetings are scheduled on demand to discuss a particular subject or > protocol, but I believe routine discussions could be very beneficial in > progressing protocol designs. > > One issue we currently have is that many protocol proposals turn into > multi year endeavors. Explicit Sync [1] is a recent example of this > which was merged after two years, and surface group transactions [2] are > still in review after four years. While these proposals are full of > excellent discussions, if the time is measured in years I think that > means there's room for improvement regarding how long it takes us to > make forward progress. It can also be unclear who is interested in a > protocol and for what reasons, or who depends on it to ship features in > a particular release. > > As more distros switch to Wayland by default, I believe having more > frequent/routine meetings would be a good investment to avoid > indefinitely blocking new desktop features. Less formal conversations > can also provide opportunities to see how implementations are > progressing, ask for reviews, and get an idea of when protocols might be > ready to land. All of these could be beneficial for handling growing > pains: more Wayland users means more feature requests. My hope is this > could reduce the social burden of proposing a protocol or tracking its > progress. > > That being said there are many open questions to answer: > - Is there interest in formally making meetings at a certain time > interval, would the community find this useful? Personally I wouldn't mind making them reoccurring at an interval, but I do see it being somewhat difficult to achieve. So far each meeting has had a topic and someone who has been wanting to lead the meeting. How do you imagine this would work; would we have someone assigned to handle this, or a rotating position, or ad-hoc depending on the topic? > - How to decide on a time? Poll before every meeting? I see the point of why we'd want to poll, because different topics might bring different people, with different timezones, but I also see a problem with polling every time; it's a reoccurring administrative task that, and there is a risk that people will get tired of answering the same poll if it's asked of them too often. Still, in advance whether there will be a quorum helps planning one's personal schedule, and a time poll could achieve this to some degree. > - How frequent should the regular meetings be? Monthly? Biweekly? Perhaps monthly, with any extra following the existing ad-hoc model, is a good start. > - How far in advance would we decide on agenda/topics? Tentative agenda > sent out a week before with a call for topics? > - Pain-points in the existing protocol approval process: would this help > them? > - Should we track action items from the previous meeting and follow up > on their status? This sounds like agenda topics one would add. > - Should there be "status updates"/pings for long-lived protocol proposals? This is somewhat what the last meeting was about, a revival of the group transaction protocol proposal. > - Possible agenda items for regular meetings. I have some initial ideas > but would appreciate more suggestions if there are any pressing > topics? > > Non-goals which I don't want to accidentally accomplish with this: > - Rush discussions or rush protocols out the door > - Force a schedule onto projects or contributors > > As always I'm open to any suggestions. I'm happy to drive the discussion > on this in the next governance meeting, and also shoulder the > organizational burden of doing these if we go forward with it. Having meetings ad-hoc has the benefit of not adding a consistently reoccurring burden on peoples schedule, and if the interest for this is not big enough, an alternative could perhaps be to make it easier some how to schedule ad-hoc meetings. Ideas for that could be a formal place to gather agenda topics and interest in participation, and someone responsible for organizing scheduling a meeting when there is enough agenda for a topic. It'll put an organizational burden on one or more person, but I imagine so is the case for meetings at an interval, but will require less commitment up front from the community at large. Jonas > > [1] > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/90 > [2] > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/26 > > Thanks! > Austin > > On 4/17/24 8:37 AM, Vlad Zahorodnii wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The Wayland Governance Meeting is semi-regular meeting to drive > > discussion on wayland-protocols forward. > > > > We are looking for the proposals for the next meeting as well as people > > who can lead/drive the dis
Governance Meeting Announcement: Text-Input (Was: Call for proposals for the next governance meeting)
Hi!, On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 2:37 PM Vlad Zahorodnii wrote: > > Hello, > > The Wayland Governance Meeting is semi-regular meeting to drive > discussion on wayland-protocols forward. > > We are looking for the proposals for the next meeting as well as people > who can lead/drive the discussion. If there is a protocol that you would > like to be on the agenda, please submit your proposals here. I would like to propose a meeting around the attempt to push forward text-input protocol features at https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/282 as there are changes there benefiting IM integration. The meeting could be held at https://meet.gnome.org/car-oot-bcf-kt4, and the date/time can be decided at https://nuudel.digitalcourage.de/mdlGZkeersnxI8fS I will announce the poll results on May 12th. Cheers, Carlos
How to support wl_touch input? (when developing clients)
Hi, what are some ways to test "wl_touch" events? - Is it possible to make track-pads use the wl_touch interface? - Is there a way to emulate touch input using a mouse? - If specific hardware is needed, any suggestions? For context, recently a user reported a bug where touch events aren't supported (wl_touch), see: https://wayland-book.com/seat/touch.html While it seems fairly straightforward to support, I don't think I have any hardware that uses this interface & buying a Wacom touch-screen just to add support for wl_touch seems excessive (I already have a touch-pad & wacom-tablet, even though both support "touch" it it seems neither active the wl_touch API). Any suggestions for how to test that wl_touch support is working for application/toolkit developers?
Re: Call for proposals for the next governance meeting
On 5/7/24 4:04 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:09:09AM -0400, Austin Shafer wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Not a protocol, but I think it would be good to discuss the possibility >> of regular Wayland Governance meetings at a decided frequency. Currently >> meetings are scheduled on demand to discuss a particular subject or >> protocol, but I believe routine discussions could be very beneficial in >> progressing protocol designs. >> >> One issue we currently have is that many protocol proposals turn into >> multi year endeavors. Explicit Sync [1] is a recent example of this >> which was merged after two years, and surface group transactions [2] are >> still in review after four years. While these proposals are full of >> excellent discussions, if the time is measured in years I think that >> means there's room for improvement regarding how long it takes us to >> make forward progress. It can also be unclear who is interested in a >> protocol and for what reasons, or who depends on it to ship features in >> a particular release. >> >> As more distros switch to Wayland by default, I believe having more >> frequent/routine meetings would be a good investment to avoid >> indefinitely blocking new desktop features. Less formal conversations >> can also provide opportunities to see how implementations are >> progressing, ask for reviews, and get an idea of when protocols might be >> ready to land. All of these could be beneficial for handling growing >> pains: more Wayland users means more feature requests. My hope is this >> could reduce the social burden of proposing a protocol or tracking its >> progress. >> >> That being said there are many open questions to answer: >> - Is there interest in formally making meetings at a certain time >> interval, would the community find this useful? > > Personally I wouldn't mind making them reoccurring at an interval, but I > do see it being somewhat difficult to achieve. > > So far each meeting has had a topic and someone who has been wanting to > lead the meeting. How do you imagine this would work; would we have > someone assigned to handle this, or a rotating position, or ad-hoc > depending on the topic? I'm happy to assign myself to handling this since it is my proposal. We could also rotate it or have the agenda item/topic owner lead discussion about their particular item. > >> - How to decide on a time? Poll before every meeting? > > I see the point of why we'd want to poll, because different topics might > bring different people, with different timezones, but I also see a > problem with polling every time; it's a reoccurring administrative task > that, and there is a risk that people will get tired of answering the > same poll if it's asked of them too often. > > Still, in advance whether there will be a quorum helps planning one's > personal schedule, and a time poll could achieve this to some degree. > >> - How frequent should the regular meetings be? Monthly? Biweekly? > > Perhaps monthly, with any extra following the existing ad-hoc model, is > a good start. > >> - How far in advance would we decide on agenda/topics? Tentative agenda >> sent out a week before with a call for topics? >> - Pain-points in the existing protocol approval process: would this help >> them? >> - Should we track action items from the previous meeting and follow up >> on their status? > > This sounds like agenda topics one would add. > >> - Should there be "status updates"/pings for long-lived protocol proposals? > > This is somewhat what the last meeting was about, a revival of the > group transaction protocol proposal. > >> - Possible agenda items for regular meetings. I have some initial ideas >> but would appreciate more suggestions if there are any pressing >> topics? >> >> Non-goals which I don't want to accidentally accomplish with this: >> - Rush discussions or rush protocols out the door >> - Force a schedule onto projects or contributors >> >> As always I'm open to any suggestions. I'm happy to drive the discussion >> on this in the next governance meeting, and also shoulder the >> organizational burden of doing these if we go forward with it. > > Having meetings ad-hoc has the benefit of not adding a consistently > reoccurring burden on peoples schedule, and if the interest for this is > not big enough, an alternative could perhaps be to make it easier some > how to schedule ad-hoc meetings. > > Ideas for that could be a formal place to gather agenda topics and > interest in participation, and someone responsible for organizing > scheduling a meeting when there is enough agenda for a topic. It'll put > an organizational burden on one or more person, but I imagine so is the > case for meetings at an interval, but will require less commitment up > front from the community at large. I think this is a pretty good alternative idea, and as I said before I'm happy to manage the organization. It would also provide a good ramp up to a regul
Announce MGRX v1.5.0 with Wayland support
Hi everybody MGRX is a small 2D graphics C library derived from the GRX library. GRX was originaly written by Csaba Biegl for DJ Delorie's DOS port of the GCC compiler. MGRX supports DOS, Win32, Linux framebuffer, Linux KMS/DRM, Linux X11 and now Linux Wayland. The Wayland videodriver is new in MGRX version 1.5.0 and must be considered in alpha stage. Only the i386 and x86_64 platforms are tested. It runs nicely most of the test programs, but have some caveats to be fixed in future releases: - There are no window decoration, Wayland expect the client to do it, so if you want to move, resize or close the window you have to use the menu in the task bar (at least in KDE). - There are no autorepeat keys, again Wayland expect the client to do it. - The compose keys don't work for now. - No interaction with the Wayland clipboard (for now too). - Because graphic commits only happen when reading events (at the moment), non interactive programs don't work as expected. I had have a lot of fun doing the Wayland videodriver. If someone wants to made it a try, it will be welcome. Website: http://fgrim.com/mgrx/index.html Github: https://github.com/malfer/mgrx Regards Mariano Alvarez
Re: How to support wl_touch input? (when developing clients)
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:27:36PM +1000, Campbell Barton wrote: > Hi, what are some ways to test "wl_touch" events? > > - Is it possible to make track-pads use the wl_touch interface? generally - no. most general-purpose compositors use libinput which converts the touch points on touchpads into pointer movement and thus compositors forward those as wl_pointer events. > - Is there a way to emulate touch input using a mouse? > - If specific hardware is needed, any suggestions? A few options: you can emulate any device with uinput (or uhid if you want to also test the kernel). the simplest way is to get a recording from a device with libinput record and then replay that locally with libinput replay. that requires that you find a touchscreen and execute the sequence though. I have one, so here's a gist I recorded: https://gist.github.com/whot/8000f803836db1425a7a1e920c10cf85 Alternatively, you can create a uinput device that attaches to your touchpad, sets INPUT_PROP_DIRECT and otherwise forwards event 1:1. https://python-libevdev.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples.html should help with that. finally, you can put a quirk with AttrInputProp=+INPUT_PROP_DIRECT;-INPUT_PROP_BUTTONPAD that should make libinput treat your device like a touchscreen (though you'll also need a udev rule to remove ID_INPUT_TOUCHPAD and instead set ID_INPUT_TOUCHSCREEN, or hack that into libinput's evdev.c). https://wayland.freedesktop.org/libinput/doc/latest/device-quirks.html I'd personally go with the record/replay approach, it's the simplest one and you can re-play that exact same sequence until whatever bug you're seeing is fixed. docs on record/replay are here: https://wayland.freedesktop.org/libinput/doc/latest/tools.html Cheers, Peter > For context, recently a user reported a bug where touch events aren't > supported (wl_touch), see: https://wayland-book.com/seat/touch.html > > While it seems fairly straightforward to support, I don't think I have any > hardware that uses this interface & buying a Wacom touch-screen just to add > support for wl_touch seems excessive (I already have a touch-pad & > wacom-tablet, even though both support "touch" it it seems neither active > the wl_touch API). > > Any suggestions for how to test that wl_touch support is working for > application/toolkit developers? > > >
Re: Governance Meeting Announcement: Text-Input (Was: Call for proposals for the next governance meeting)
Hi, On Tue, 7 May 2024 13:40:32 +0200 Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hi!, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 2:37 PM Vlad Zahorodnii > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > The Wayland Governance Meeting is semi-regular meeting to drive > > discussion on wayland-protocols forward. > > > > We are looking for the proposals for the next meeting as well as people > > who can lead/drive the discussion. If there is a protocol that you would > > like to be on the agenda, please submit your proposals here. > > I would like to propose a meeting around the attempt to push forward > text-input protocol features at > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/282 > as there are changes there benefiting IM integration. > > The meeting could be held at https://meet.gnome.org/car-oot-bcf-kt4, > and the date/time can be decided at > https://nuudel.digitalcourage.de/mdlGZkeersnxI8fS > > I will announce the poll results on May 12th. > > Cheers, > Carlos bad timing for me, that's the week I reserved for going offline. Thanks for bringing attention to your new work. -- Dorota