[Xcb] libX11 release

[Ian Osgood]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:59 PM, Jamey Sharp wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> 1) default on with xcb using the 0.9 release, or will this break  
>> stuff
>> at 1.0, or be unstable, etc?
>
> XCB 0.9 is functionally complete as far as I remember, but Bugzilla
> remembers better than I do. (Which I guess makes me thoroughly
> pathetic.) However, the functions currently marked deprecated will be
> removed before the 1.0 release, and the master branch of libX11 still
> uses some of those, so both will have to upgrade simultaneously. This
> plus some other Xlib-specific bugs are blocking an Xlib/XCB preview
> release.

This is my vote. Exposure is good.

>> Also, Fredrik just said some of the extensions were out of data, e.g.
>> Xrender 2 releases behind.
>
> Ah, the price of innovation. We've missed two revs of RENDER? Somebody
> certainly should update the protocol descriptions: I've filed bug  
> #7125
> to track that. Anything else we're behind on? Please file a bug for  
> each
> extension that we need to update.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jamey

There are already bugs for updating the Screen saver and Composite
extensions. I made them blockers for 6797. (Some of these we can
cherry pick from Alp's branch.)

Is the only new proto development happening in the git repositories
xorg-proto-*? If so, we should also check RandR and Fixes for changes.

A process question: How could we better encourage folks to keep
xcb-proto in sync with xorg/proto? Are there sections of the Xorg
dev guide we should update? Ostensibly, it should be
easier for people to test extensions in XCB than in Xlib.

Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEhaYiHDwFgzc3zyIRAiO9AJwKGA009MOuSG0bFTqWRUsQB0nJFwCdHiN4
IozZqvyrs5VJ06L7oDD5ndI=
=4w3j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----