Where should project Weston go?

[Bryce Harrington]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
> 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.

Already many such "other projects" have sprung up:  Protocol dumpers,
advanced terminal clients, keyboard and input libraries, and of course
the desktop environments themselves.  My expectation is that if
Wayland/Weston maintain a tight focus on core functionalities and
intentionally ignore the more peripheral things, then that will create
holes/opportunities that third parties can fulfil.
 
> >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.

Certainly, I agree with this.

> 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.

Let's keep critiques to be constructive.

Perhaps the situation could be improved via some patches from you?

Bryce