Where should project Weston go?

Jussi Laako jussi.laako at linux.intel.com
Tue Dec 9 01:18:16 PST 2014

On 9.12.2014 1:26, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> But I imagine 'minimal' is intended here in more of an engineering
> sense, and interpret it myself to mean something like: Focuses on
> principle features not superfluous stuff better handled by other
> projects; doesn't overengineer algorithms to squeeze a few drops of
> performance; feature selection by what fits nicely and makes sense, not

I would like to ask, what/where are those "other projects". As long as 
there are no such projects, weston is the one used and also the metrics 
to judge overall project in terms of quality and performance.

> I've noticed over the years, that I can say until I'm blue in the face
> that "Wayland is just a protocol, Weston is just a reference
> implementation, and you need to look at desktop environments to provide
> Wayland compositors;" but people still keep asking me, "Okay, but when
> can I ditch X and just use Wayland as my desktop?"

If it wants to be just protocol and reference implementation, 
Documentation needs to improve vastly. At the current level of 
documentation and ease-of-use for example of libwayland, I'm not holding 
my breath waiting to see anything product quality built ground-up based 
on what Wayland project produces.

Now it looks like someone's GUI engine programming experiment.

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list