On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:21:21PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:49:49 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This series changes weston to depend on wayland-protocols for the > > majority of the protocols previously in the protocols/ directory. The > > protocols moved are also renamed to comply with the unstable naming > > conventions of wayland-protocols, with the exception of xdg_shell which > > will use the current name until the next version. > > > > I'd appreciate if maintainers of given protocols could at least Ack the > > patch changing their protocol implementation, as a semi formal stamp of > > approval of the name change. > > Hi Jonas, > > I'll give any detailed feedback as replies to the patches, here are some > overall comments. > > > Other than that, the workspaces protocol is removed, mostly because it > > wasn't a significant enough proof of concept needed for any particular > > feature. text-cursor-position.xml however I have left intact, because > > without it the zoom accessibility feature proof of concept becomes > > a bit too useless. I'd prefer to prefix it with something like toy_ or > > weston_, but would like to hear input on this one. Given that it is > > completely undocumented it is quite far from a real attempt, but it > > seems like something that will be needed sooner or later for > > accessibility reasons, so not sure what to do with it right now. > > > > Things that seemed more weston specific was weston_ prefixed. The > > screenshooter protocol and the desktop shell protocol fell into this > > category. > > Speaking of prefixes, do we have an idea what protocols should use the > wl_ prefix and what shouldn't? > > I have had the feeling that wl_ is only Wayland core. But what does > Wayland core mean? And wl_shell is an exception already. > > Should we restrict wl_ to only for things in wayland.xml? Probably not, > as I think wl_ in e.g. wl_scaler is justified since it's a "low-level" > generic feature, and yet wl_scaler will not be added into wayland.xml. > > Perhaps wl_ prefix should be reserved for extensions that are usable > regardless of a shell or environment. I'm not sure if the input method > extensions would be eligible for wl_ or not, or what to do with > fullscreen shell.
That sounds like a good rule of thumb. I should think it further should be limited to stuff that we (the Wayland project) intend to provide stability guarantees for and to maintain as an official interface for the project. > This puzzles me a bit: > > "Each release of wayland-protocols finalizes the version of the > protocols to their state they had at that time. Between each > release, backward incompatible changes can be made to both > stable and major unstable protocol versions as long as the > requirements are held upon release." > > It says backward-incompatible changes could be made to also stable > protocols as long as stability is maintained from release to release. > Essentially it means that such changes have to be reverted before the > next release. Is that just to account for accidents? > > If wayland-protocols is intended to be released often and as-needed, we > should make sure we don't need such reverts to begin with. Otherwise > the release engineer will have a big review burden. IOW, we should keep > the repo in an always releasable state. > > In short, I wouldn't mention the stable protocols in this paragraph. Agreed. It's also not unlikely people will be using snapshots of the git tree from between releases. Bryce _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
