wayland-protocols scope and governance
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 18 08:19:17 UTC 2019
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:06:39 -0400
Drew DeVault <sir at cmpwn.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, catching up on my emails now. Responding to Daniel
> as the other emails don't have much actionable stuff, but I read
> everything on this thread. Thanks for the feedback!
> On 2019-04-08 6:18 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On the mailing list front, I think wayland-devel@ is probably quiet
> > enough these days - and focused on common protocol-like stuff - that
> > we could probably just reuse that list.
> -1, it's way too noisy imo.
my feeling is that it's less than ten emails per day on average. That's
a very low number, and a good portion, if not most of it, is already
protocol design discussions or wayland-protocols review.
Once wayland-protocols review moves to Gitlab, it will be much less.
> > But that being said, I would strongly advocate for doing review
> > through GitLab. For the implementations and users I can think of -
> > Chromium, EFL, Enlightenment, Firefox, GStreamer, GTK, KWin, Mesa,
> > Mutter, Qt, SDL, Weston, wlroots - plus Wayland core itself, all of
> > them use web review tools (Bugzilla x1, Gerrit, GitHub, GitLab,
> > Phabricator, Reitveld x1) as their sole review method with the
> > exception of Mesa, which also allows mailing-list submissions. I get
> > that sr.ht is working on a decent mailing-list review workflow, but
> > what we have today with Patchwork definitely isn't that.
> I'll begrudgingly concede to patch review on Gitlab, even if it's 10x
> more work to get your patches out there. I think that discussions ought
> to stay on a mailing list, though. It's just a better medium for them,
> and everyone has an email account.
Would be interesting to hear what you think after you've submitted 5
MRs to the same project, to be able to see past the first-time setup
I agree about discussions though. They are good to have on a mailing
list. In my opinion, currently there is no feature in Gitlab that would
be suitable for discussions or questions that are not bug reports nor
> > Given that, I'm prepared to push hard for using web-based review as
> > the status-quo for how we all do our own protocol development anyway.
> I'll guess I'll just formally register a strong NACK, but I feel like
> I'm shouting at a tree.
> I know it's hard to turn a blind eye to my vested interests in mailing
> list driven development, but even on GNU mailman I prefer mailing lists.
> There's a reason I built my platform that way, after all. I genuinely
> think it's a better model.
I find it somewhat strange that you advocate a mailing list workflow,
but cannot or do not want to deal with that low average traffic as
currently on wayland-devel at . What's the difference?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel