Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:44:15PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > one remaining question I have though: what are we to do with changes to the > wayland protocol itself, e.g. the pointer axis changes. There are a few that > cannot be easily added as separate interface, do we bite the bullet

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:26:05 +0800 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:44:15PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > > > one remaining question I have though: what are we to do with changes to the > > wayland protocol itself, e.g. the pointer axis changes.

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:41:31PM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Hi again, > > I implemented one of the brought up ideas to see how it'd work. > More specifically, I created a repository called "wayland-protocols"[0] > and adapted weston[1] to use it for the fullscreen shell. I also added >

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:07:19AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:24:04 +0100 > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On 9 October 2015 at 14:36, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > >> >>

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 05:31:10PM +0200, Mariusz Ceier wrote: > Hi, > > On 9 October 2015 at 15:36, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 11:15, Jonas Ådahl wrote: >

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:24:04 +0100 Daniel Stone wrote: > On 9 October 2015 at 14:36, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> >> > I still have the '_' prefix which, mentioned by Pekka, violates some > >>

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:18:47 +0800 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:07:19AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:24:04 +0100 > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 14:36, Jonas Ådahl

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi all, I'm not sure how much of this was directed at me, if any, but I feel like I should state my position. On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:43:06 -0700 "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote: > ... snip ... > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: >

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:41:31 +0800 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Hi again, > > I implemented one of the brought up ideas to see how it'd work. > More specifically, I created a repository called "wayland-protocols"[0] > and adapted weston[1] to use it for the fullscreen shell. I also

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:36:54PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:41:31 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > I implemented one of the brought up ideas to see how it'd work. > > More specifically, I created a repository called

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi again, I implemented one of the brought up ideas to see how it'd work. More specifically, I created a repository called "wayland-protocols"[0] and adapted weston[1] to use it for the fullscreen shell. I also added pointer gestures to make it obvious that its not only protocols that are

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 9 October 2015 at 14:36, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Excellent. One really important thing I think to have would be some >> documentation around the protocol: what are the known open issues / >> missing pieces /

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 8 October 2015 at 21:43, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: >> The issues I had with earlier xdg-shell development mostly centred >> around your frustration with bikeshedding leading to pulling out

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 9 October 2015 at 11:15, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:36:54PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:41:31 +0800 >> Jonas Ådahl wrote: >> > I implemented one of the brought up ideas to see how it'd work. >> > More

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 9 October 2015 at 11:15, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:36:54PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:41:31 +0800 > >> Jonas Ådahl wrote: > >> > I

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 9 October 2015 at 15:36, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 11:15, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:36:54PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > >> On

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

... snip ... On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > That's a fair (and accurate) criticism, but again I don't think that > needs one big cheese. There are quite a few people here who I think > are fairly empowered to shut down discussions that

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On 29 September 2015 at 21:14, Daniel Stone wrote: > On 18 September 2015 at 08:00, Jonas Ådahl wrote: >> The main issue, I believe, is that we lack defined procedure and agreed >> upon requirements for what may actually be placed in such a repository. I

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi Jonas, > > On 18 September 2015 at 08:00, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > Right now, the way to get a protocol officially declared stable is, more > > or less, to implement it in weston, wait for a while maybe making > >

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:02:52 +0200 Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hi Pekka, > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:44:16 +0800 > > Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi Pekka, On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:44:16 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:00:19 +0800 >> > Jonas Ådahl

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, Leaving the more mechanical issue of how we deal with extension development for the moment ... On 29 September 2015 at 14:53, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:02:52 +0200 > Carlos Garnacho wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Pekka

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:41PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > Leaving the more mechanical issue of how we deal with extension > development for the moment ... > > > I don't think we've really had a maintainer since krh. I tried to take > > over reviewing and releasing things and got

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:18:52PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 29 September 2015 at 20:26, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > > I would like to throw the idea of holding a regular > > conference/meeting/bof though, I think it's a nice way to passively > > check the state of

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hey Pekka, On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> > Whoever is a known expert on that area. >> > >> > Who decides who is an expert? Uhh... >> >> It wouldn't be good if every maintainer thinks like that :), even >> worse if that results in no action

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hey Daniel, On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > Leaving the more mechanical issue of how we deal with extension > development for the moment ... > > On 29 September 2015 at 14:53, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi Jonas, On 18 September 2015 at 08:00, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Right now, the way to get a protocol officially declared stable is, more > or less, to implement it in weston, wait for a while maybe making > changes, and then when agreed upon moved to the wayland repository. While

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 29 September 2015 at 20:26, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > I would like to throw the idea of holding a regular > conference/meeting/bof though, I think it's a nice way to passively > check the state of development around other areas, seeing working code > in action without

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, On 29 September 2015 at 21:18, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: >> It's probably most helpful to look at the context in which we had our >> maintainers, and the way Wayland development has ebbed and

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On 18/09/15 11:12 AM, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > 2015-09-18 17:44 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:00:19 +0800 >>> Jonas Ådahl wrote: >>> Hi, I'd like to start a

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:44:16 +0800 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:00:19 +0800 > > Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on the state of

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:35:19AM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > 2015-09-19 4:24 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 07:12:10PM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > >> 2015-09-18 17:44 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : > >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 08:28:08PM -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > We can pick any number of strategies to deal with unstable protocols. > We can give it a special name, we can say that any version < 1000 is > considered unstable, we can use a special request. That's not too > important -- we're

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

2015-09-19 4:24 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 07:12:10PM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote: >> 2015-09-18 17:44 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : >> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> What do you do when you

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 07:12:10PM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > 2015-09-18 17:44 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl : > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >> > >> What do you do when you do a backward-incompatible change to a protocol? > >> > >> - Rename

State of Wayland protocol development

Hi, I'd like to start a discussion on the state of how development of Wayland interfaces are done and how they should be done, though less about the technical aspect of it. Right now, the way to get a protocol officially declared stable is, more or less, to implement it in weston, wait for a

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:00:19 +0800 > Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on the state of how development of Wayland > > interfaces are done and how they should be done, though

Re: State of Wayland protocol development

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:00:19 +0800 Jonas Ådahl wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to start a discussion on the state of how development of Wayland > interfaces are done and how they should be done, though less about the > technical aspect of it. > > Right now, the way to get a