[PATCH weston 00/10] weston wayland-protocols migration

[Bryce Harrington]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:21:21PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed,  4 Nov 2015 16:49:49 +0800
> Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This series changes weston to depend on wayland-protocols for the
> > majority of the protocols previously in the protocols/ directory. The
> > protocols moved are also renamed to comply with the unstable naming
> > conventions of wayland-protocols, with the exception of xdg_shell which
> > will use the current name until the next version.
> > 
> > I'd appreciate if maintainers of given protocols could at least Ack the
> > patch changing their protocol implementation, as a semi formal stamp of
> > approval of the name change.
> 
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> I'll give any detailed feedback as replies to the patches, here are some
> overall comments.
> 
> > Other than that, the workspaces protocol is removed, mostly because it
> > wasn't a significant enough proof of concept needed for any particular
> > feature. text-cursor-position.xml however I have left intact, because
> > without it the zoom accessibility feature proof of concept becomes
> > a bit too useless. I'd prefer to prefix it with something like toy_ or
> > weston_, but would like to hear input on this one. Given that it is
> > completely undocumented it is quite far from a real attempt, but it
> > seems like something that will be needed sooner or later for
> > accessibility reasons, so not sure what to do with it right now.
> > 
> > Things that seemed more weston specific was weston_ prefixed. The
> > screenshooter protocol and the desktop shell protocol fell into this
> > category.
> 
> Speaking of prefixes, do we have an idea what protocols should use the
> wl_ prefix and what shouldn't?
> 
> I have had the feeling that wl_ is only Wayland core. But what does
> Wayland core mean? And wl_shell is an exception already.
> 
> Should we restrict wl_ to only for things in wayland.xml? Probably not,
> as I think wl_ in e.g. wl_scaler is justified since it's a "low-level"
> generic feature, and yet wl_scaler will not be added into wayland.xml.
> 
> Perhaps wl_ prefix should be reserved for extensions that are usable
> regardless of a shell or environment. I'm not sure if the input method
> extensions would be eligible for wl_ or not, or what to do with
> fullscreen shell.

That sounds like a good rule of thumb.  I should think it further should
be limited to stuff that we (the Wayland project) intend to provide
stability guarantees for and to maintain as an official interface for
the project.

> This puzzles me a bit:
> 
> 	"Each release of wayland-protocols finalizes the version of the
> 	protocols to their state they had at that time. Between each
> 	release, backward incompatible changes can be made to both
> 	stable and major unstable protocol versions as long as the
> 	requirements are held upon release."
> 
> It says backward-incompatible changes could be made to also stable
> protocols as long as stability is maintained from release to release.
> Essentially it means that such changes have to be reverted before the
> next release. Is that just to account for accidents?
>
> If wayland-protocols is intended to be released often and as-needed, we
> should make sure we don't need such reverts to begin with. Otherwise
> the release engineer will have a big review burden. IOW, we should keep
> the repo in an always releasable state.
>
> In short, I wouldn't mention the stable protocols in this paragraph.

Agreed.  It's also not unlikely people will be using snapshots of the
git tree from between releases.

Bryce