On 2019-02-21 4:00 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Let's forget about the prefixes or namespaces indicating anything about
> endorsement or acceptance.
I don't think using prefixes/namespaces for acceptance/blessedness is
going to be a good idea, but I do think defining some namespaces and a
scope fo
On 2019-02-21 6:11 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> IMHO we should choose one or the other, not some combination where
> Gitlab sends E-mails to the mailing list for merge requests, as this
> would mean we'd end up with multiple diverging versions of the same
> discussion thread.
fwiw I think a mailing l
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:36 PM, James Feeney wrote:
> As an outside observer, and still cheering for Wayland, I've often
> felt inclined to rant about the focus and management of the "Wayland
> Project", or perhaps, its lack thereof. […]
Sorry, these comments feel a bit off-topic here. I'
On 2/21/19 8:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> But why should Weston cripple itself in order to create this negative
> space for wlroots or Mutter or Smithay or whatever? I'm happy to clean
> up the README to reflect reality. One of the side effects of creating
> this protocol documentation site really
On 2019-02-21 3:47 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Glibly, I'd probably just categorise the sway* clients in under the
> Sway/wlroots project, unless they had separate governance, opinions,
> roadmaps, etc? Similarly, I'm not sure there's much reason for us to
> separate the toytoolkit and simple-* clie
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:47:13AM -0500, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> >
> > One of Weston's goals is to be a reference compositor. As an active
> > implementation, it serves as a useful neutral ground for the rest of
> > the ecos
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 04:50:27PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a
> wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains.
>
> Currently, wayland-protocols is a relatively small set of protocols
> which were either
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> One of Weston's goals is to be a reference compositor. As an active
> implementation, it serves as a useful neutral ground for the rest of
> the ecosystem: we try to be exhaustively correct in what we do
> implement, and gets used a
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 18:36, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On 2019-02-19 4:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > - other clients: Chromium (client), Firefox, Mesa (EGL/Vulkan)
>
> This might start getting out of hand, I think. Here's an incomplete list
> of clients which use wlr protocols:
>
> - [...]
>
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:05:26 -0500
Drew DeVault wrote:
> On 2019-02-21 2:53 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > the list seems purely informative. Is it actually bad if it ends up
> > containing hundreds of entries? If someone actually wants their
> > individual apps listed, why not?
>
> You're rig
On 2019-02-21 2:53 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> the list seems purely informative. Is it actually bad if it ends up
> containing hundreds of entries? If someone actually wants their
> individual apps listed, why not?
You're right, I retract my concerns about the list being unwieldy. I was
thinking
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:50:27 +
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'd like to open up a discussion on enlarging wayland-protocols to a
> wider audience, with a better definition of what it contains.
>
> Currently, wayland-protocols is a relatively small set of protocols
> which were either gran
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:36:51 -0500
Drew DeVault wrote:
> This is a great plan, Daniel, thank you for taking the time to write it
> up and help push this problem towards a solution.
>
> On 2019-02-19 4:50 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > My first, hopefully uncontroversial, suggestion: introduce a li
13 matches
Mail list logo
