Are these patchsets ready to land?

Jonas Ã…dahl jadahl at
Thu Feb 18 02:05:03 UTC 2016

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:56:34PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> There's a few patchsets in patchwork which I'm not entirely certain
> where they're at review-wise.
> Since we're at the start of a new release I'd like to clear down our
> queue a bit by landing stuff that's ready to go, but while many of these
> have received some review I'm not 100% if they've completely good to go.
> == Weston ==
> 1.  Pointer locking and confinement [v4] (19 patches) - Jonas Adahl
> Most of the patches in this patchset have either an R-b or A-b.  I know
> this is really close to ready to go and almost went in for the release.
> Is there any remaining questions or work that needs sorted out?  If not
> should we go ahead and get it landed so we can get going on testing it?

Should be, soon. There are a couple of patches that has issues (clickdot
-> confinement demo splitup most notebly). It also needs to be updated
to the latest protocol changes.

> 2.  Pointer gesture support [v3] (3 patches) - Carlos Garnacho
> These add a swipe/pinch protocol and implements demonstrative support in
> a couple weston clients.  The protocol has R-b's from Jonas and Peter,
> and looks like from the discussion that only reason they haven't landed
> was because last time they were looked at we were in the midst of a
> release.  Unless anyone has any new concerns I'd like to go ahead and
> land these soon.

AFAICS the gesture patches are against the moved and renamed protocol
(_wl_pointer_gestures vs zwp_pointer_gestures_v1) so they need to be

> 3.  Tablet support [v2] (13 patches) - Peter Hutterer
> This set is relatively recent, but IMHO is unlikely to be terribly
> controversial.  I am personally not terribly worried it carries much
> risk, and if there's issues we have plenty of time to test.  How much
> further time do we think this patchset needs to percolate?  Is this on
> anyone's todo list to review?

The tablet protocol is not merged, and these patches might change if the
protocol changes again before merging.

> == Wayland Protocols ==
> 1. Add the tablet protocol [v4] - Peter
> I assume this goes with the tablet support for weston.  The charter for
> wayland-protocols is give a home to unstable stuff once it's gotten a
> little review.  The tablet protocol seems to fit this bill so while it
> doesn't look like it has any R-b's, in the interest in moving things
> forward here I'd like to go ahead and land this, if no one has qualms?

I discussed this with Peter when he sent the patches and we concluded to
wait for the R-B's before pushing. It previously had R-B's by a few (I
think Jason Gerecke, Daniel Stone and Carlos Garnacho at least) and it
would be good if at least some them could re-give their R-B's before

> 2. Various xdg-shell patches
> xdg-shell: Add startup notification - Carlos

This was only a RFC.

> xdg-shell: Introduce xdg_tooltip - Jonas
> xdg-shell: Turn xdg_surface into a generic base interface - Jonas
> xdg-shell: Make get_popup take a xdg_surface instead of wl_surface - Jonas
> xdg-shell: Bump unstable version to 6 - Jonas

All of these should only go to the xdg shell v6 branch until we are
happy with v6. As mentioned in another mail we should really avoid any
unnecessary breaking changes related to xdg-shell since the impact of
such changes are severe. FWIW, the ones not on the v6 branch is not
ready to be merged there either since all of them has outstanding

The xdg-shell v6 patches are also mostly an effort by me and Mike, and
third party review would be nice. Note that xdg_tooltip patch will
probably change greatly.

> Obviously Jonas can land these himself at will, so mostly I'm wondering
> why they haven't landed yet.  Do they need additional review?

As I see it, none of these are ready to be merged right now, but some
are quite close.


> Thanks,
> Bryce
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list