State of Wayland protocol development

[Daniel Stone]

On 29 September 2015 at 21:14, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> On 18 September 2015 at 08:00, Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The main issue, I believe, is that we lack defined procedure and agreed
>> upon requirements for what may actually be placed in such a repository. I
>> don't think it makes sense to have a sandbox protocol repository for
>> things like this; I think we need some system similar to what we have
>> with required review and discussion, and initial iterations and releases,
>> but I believe the pace of letting experimental protocols in and be
>> tracked not only on a mailing list, with proper versioning etc, is too
>> slow right now, and somehow we need to fix that.
>
> Actually, I think a sandbox protocol repository could be a good one,
> particularly if we used git submodules to track it; someone did
> suggest this, but I can't find it now. The only downside to that is
> that it can tie versions together: you'd need to track zlinux_dmabuf
> and _wl_pointer_gestures together, which can be pretty onerous. Maybe
> the best approach would be to version the files: e.g. you'd have
> linux-dmabuf-v3.xml, linux-dmabuf-v4.xml, pointer-gestures-v1.xml,
> etc. That way we could have a single central repository for everyone,
> assuming they could be persuaded to use submodules.

Credit where credit's due, here's not only the source of my original
point, but also apparently the source of the filename-vN.xml
conclusion I arrived at:
3:55 PM <SardemFF7> pq, garnacho__: central repo with all XMLs +
<name>-<major-version>.xml naming scheme (which could be reflected in
the "_N" prefix for interfaces, as in "bump major version->break
stuff”) = a usable repo as a gitsubmodule, which avoid the
“copy&forget” use case

Cheers,
Daniel