On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:06 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > > Taking into account last emails about pushing GNOME release due Wayland > > [2], I think that is a good moment to raise a debate about Wayland > > status. Probably the big question is "what would be the default for > > GNOME 3.12?" > > It will be X; even if we delay by a week it would only match a beta > release of wayland, with the required shell stuff just landed; that > will only work as a technological preview, there's still much to do > as far as I know. > > Btw, this, and realted discussions during FOSDEM, makes me wonder if > delaying is really worth it, and it may just be easier to announce > that 3.12 wayland support will require Wayland 1.5, for which a beta > is scheduled to release "the week after".
I am currently not (yet) convinced to postpone. Wayland won't be on by default in GNOME 3.12 so it feels weird to postpone our schedule for it. Which potential problems do we run into if we don't postpone 3.12? Our 3.12 code will have more ifdef's in case Wayland API has/will change/d, or is there something worse? (I really don't follow Wayland closely so this reply is from my guts and might ignore really convincing arguments that I'm not aware of.) andre -- Andre Klapper | [email protected] http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
