<div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Giulio Camuffo <<a href="mailto:giuliocamuffo@gmail.com" target="_blank">giuliocamuffo@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">2014-10-29 8:45 GMT+02:00 Imran Zaman <<a href="mailto:imran.zaman@gmail.com">imran.zaman@gmail.com</a>>: > Daniel! > > As per your logic, I see wl_list APIs exposed etc, which shouldn't be part > of libwayland as well. > similarly, wl_fixed_to_double and wl_array shouldn't be part of the window > system. Isnt it? > I can make inline functions if that helps. wl_list is used in the server side API, so it's a bit different. However, I'd agree that it'd be better if it wasn't exposed but we can't remove it now. wl_fixed is a wayland specific type so all the wl_fixed_* functions need to be part of the API. On the other hand wl_strtol would just be a function, there are is no other API that depends on it. > > Btw here is an API patch, which has not be reviewed till now. > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2014-October/017833.html" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2014-October/017833.html</a> Yes, like there are many other patches waiting for reviews. You need to have patience, it's not like we are ignoring it. But, if I may add, the way you are reacting to a comment to this patch doesn't encourage to review your other ones. </blockquote><div> Neither the random/comments to the patch are encouraging :-) e.g. "AOL. We're a window system, not a replacement libc."</div><div>Its your choice to review it or not; I did not put the API patch link here just because it has not been reviewed. I have lots of patience but Tizen may need something urgent or else we may need to fork wayland/weston in Tizen. I put it in the thread because Daniel said that we did not have any further progress/discussion on that end.</div><div> </div><div>Anyways I take the patch off, as it does not "sound" like it should be here to save everyone's time. If the time allows, I will remove it from public APIs in addition to one critical bug fix and resubmit the patch.</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> -- Giulio <div class=""><div class="h5"> > > BR > imran > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Stone <<a href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org">daniel@fooishbar.org</a>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 28 October 2014 15:40, Imran Zaman <<a href="mailto:imran.zaman@gmail.com">imran.zaman@gmail.com</a>> wrote: >>> >>> You guys should check the reason why the patch is there rather than >>> throwing out random thoughts or blunt comments. >>> >>> I did this patch mainly because weston/wayland has been using >>> strtol/strtoul functions in number of places with buggy error checks, and >>> duplicate code everywhere. Weston and wayland go together; so in bigger >>> picture, its a very useful patch IMO.. I hardly find any patches with proper >>> tests, but I did it so to make it more effective. But I guess in >>> wayland/weston community, only maintainers are allowed to push patches >>> others are strongly discouraged to do so. I guess its better to encourage >>> people/community for giving helping hand. >>> >>> Anyways we will now only push patches (including multi-seat support) in >>> Tizen weston/wayland rather than wasting time in upstreamn weston/wayland as >>> it seems to be long bureaucratic process to overcome with virtually no >>> success. >> >> >> That's not what we've said. No-one said 'don't take the patch'; all we >> said is 'please don't expose it as part of libwayland-*'s _public_ API'. >> >> I like the idea of the patch, I like how it's caught a number of buggy >> spots where we've open-coded the same thing, and I like that it's >> well-tested. For internal usage, it's great! I just don't want to expose >> string manipulation functions in the public API of a window system. >> >> You're right that the test infrastructure is in a pretty bad state. >> Anything which helps that is more than welcome, and you may have seen a >> bunch of patches from Derek Foreman (not a maintainer) on this list, which >> are progressing well and go a long way towards improving our test suite into >> something that will be really useful day to day. Any further contributions >> along those lines - from anyone - are totally welcome. >> >> As for your multiseat patches, the last discussions I remember involved >> some pretty fundamental disagreements about the whole architecture, >> particularly input support. I haven't seen any more patches or discussion >> since the last IRC chat, though. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Stone <<a href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org">daniel@fooishbar.org</a>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 28 October 2014 15:40, Imran Zaman <<a href="mailto:imran.zaman@gmail.com">imran.zaman@gmail.com</a>> wrote: >>> >>> You guys should check the reason why the patch is there rather than >>> throwing out random thoughts or blunt comments. >>> >>> I did this patch mainly because weston/wayland has been using >>> strtol/strtoul functions in number of places with buggy error checks, and >>> duplicate code everywhere. Weston and wayland go together; so in bigger >>> picture, its a very useful patch IMO.. I hardly find any patches with proper >>> tests, but I did it so to make it more effective. But I guess in >>> wayland/weston community, only maintainers are allowed to push patches >>> others are strongly discouraged to do so. I guess its better to encourage >>> people/community for giving helping hand. >>> >>> Anyways we will now only push patches (including multi-seat support) in >>> Tizen weston/wayland rather than wasting time in upstreamn weston/wayland as >>> it seems to be long bureaucratic process to overcome with virtually no >>> success. >> >> >> That's not what we've said. No-one said 'don't take the patch'; all we >> said is 'please don't expose it as part of libwayland-*'s _public_ API'. >> >> I like the idea of the patch, I like how it's caught a number of buggy >> spots where we've open-coded the same thing, and I like that it's >> well-tested. For internal usage, it's great! I just don't want to expose >> string manipulation functions in the public API of a window system. >> >> You're right that the test infrastructure is in a pretty bad state. >> Anything which helps that is more than welcome, and you may have seen a >> bunch of patches from Derek Foreman (not a maintainer) on this list, which >> are progressing well and go a long way towards improving our test suite into >> something that will be really useful day to day. Any further contributions >> along those lines - from anyone - are totally welcome. >> >> As for your multiseat patches, the last discussions I remember involved >> some pretty fundamental disagreements about the whole architecture, >> particularly input support. I haven't seen any more patches or discussion >> since the last IRC chat, though. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel > > </div></div></blockquote></div> </div></div>