Hi, On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:30:52PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 03/ 1/11 09:52 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:14:26PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > >> Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code > >> was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient > >> review, but we don't have a formal process for either of those > >> modules. Anyone know how to help with that? -- We don't have an official > >> protocol tree maintainer at this point, although Daniel Stone did > >> volunteer to put together another proposal for merging those trees > >> together, and if that happened, maybe we could convince him to run a > >> couple of cycles as release manager. > > > > Yeah, that got caught up in unexpected holiday and/or moving continents; > > by the time I'd got to it, I'd missed the feature freeze for 1.10, so > > just shuffled it down my TODO list and moved on. I could try again for > > 1.11, and am happy to maintain it. > > > > I described my rough plan here: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-September/013145.html > > Seems like it would make things like dropping RandR 1.4 but keeping the > new Sync version for 1.10 a little harder, but maybe that will just provide > additional encouragement to get the protocol changes locked down farther in > advance of the server release.
Yeah, definitely keeping them locked down makes sense, but I envision the API looking somewhat like this: XORG_REQUIRE_EXTENSION(RANDR, [1.4.99.901]) rather than having everything depend on a specific version of xproto. This will make it a _lot_ easier to maintain a -next tree that can just be a random amalgamation of whatever unstable protocol changes people are working on. Does that make sense? Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
