On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:07:56PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 10:50 AM, Alexandros Frantzis > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 02:44:53PM +0000, Simon Ser wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > + Explicit synchronization is guaranteed to be supported only > > > > > > for buffers > > > > > > + created with any version of the zwp_linux_dmabuf buffer > > > > > > factory. > > > > > > > > > > I think we can drop the "z" prefix here. > > > > > > > > Hmm, not sure about this. We would be using a protocol prefix/name > > > > combination that doesn't exist (yet). Of course the intention is clear, > > > > but I think it would be better to update this to, e.g., > > > > (z)wp_linux_dmabuf, when linux_dmabuf actually becomes stable. > > > > > > Then add the v1 suffix zwp_linux_dmabuf_v1? > > > > The "any version" of zwp_linux_dmabuf was meant to cover both _v* and > > version="*", but I guess that's not clear enough. Perhaps "with any > > version of zwp_linux_dmabuf_v*"? In any case, I am also fine with just > > adding _v1 for now and updating as needed in the future. > > It's not uncommon to refer to the not-yet-existing stable versions of the > protocols in their unstable versions.
Since there are precedents in the repo of using the not-yet-existing stable name, and as long as it's clear that this is a general reference to all unstable and stable versions, I will go with that. Thanks, Alexandros _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
