On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:57:45PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Thu Sep 19, 2019 at 9:02 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > 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. > > I mean, I'm not in any particular hurry to get any particular protocol > through the process. An implementation is a key part of the development > of a protocol and almost always reveals flaws in the protocol that a > human reading alone wouldn't. The difference between client and server > implementations can be similarly revealing, and it's nice to have more > people looking at a protocol with this degree of care. > > However, I agree with your reasoning that multiple clients and a single > compositor still creates a system of stakeholders which would benefit > from this process. What if we required the sum of implementations > (client or server) to be 3 or more?
Seems to me like a better alternative. Jonas _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
