On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:10:24PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > I think both for stable and unstable the same limitation can be > > as problematic. A protocol that fits in xdg/wp may still only be > > relevant for a single compositor and multiple toolkits, or vice versa, > > even when declared stable. Seems to me like the wrong method to keep > > quality of wp/xdg protocols high. > > If a protocol is only useful for one compositor, I think that compositor > ought to manage the stability and governance of that protocol itself. If > there aren't multiple stakeholders who need to be kept happy, then why > is it even necessary to bring that protocol into shared governance? It's > up to the single stakeholder to make any promises towards stability or > design that they see fit with those who depend on them.
Well there could be multiple stake holders - multiple client toolkits. Lets pretend there is only a single tiling compositor. Why would tiling protocols be restricted from becoming part of xdg_*? Or lets pretend only wlroots had any intention of implementing the server side of xdg_toplevel_decoration, why would it be excluded, when Qt, gtk, GLFW, SDL, ... would implement? I think that if there is a consensus that it's within the correct scope and no-one nacks it, there shouldn't need be any artifical bureaucratic road blocks in the way. Jonas _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
