Where should project Weston go?
daniel at fooishbar.org
Wed Dec 10 04:36:59 PST 2014
On 10 December 2014 at 10:18, Jussi Laako <jussi.laako at linux.intel.com>
> On 9.12.2014 11:46, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> Perhaps the situation could be improved via some patches from you?
> We tried for the multi-seat, but it wasn't so much welcomed. We'll
> probably just maintain our fork for what we need.
You offered multiseat patches, and we pointed out a number of flaws with
the design that made it unsuitable for upstream. Instead of redesigning it
to fit, you said that you had already committed to the design you developed
internally and had to ship it, which is totally understandable, but this is
not a failure of upstream. If you redesigned your patches to avoid the (IMO
massive) design flaws and resubmitted, or communicated with us earlier on
so your original design was more suitable, this could've been avoided.
In particular, you've been complaining about the lack of documentation. We
would absolutely welcome a lot of patches and help there, since it is a
weak spot. Is that something you'd be interested in helping with?
And, as Bryce says, be nice. Saying that it looks like a 'programming
experiment' is unfairly harsh, and would also call into question your
decision to commit to it on a commercial basis. So let's just leave that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel