[PATCH wayland-protocols] presentation-time: add missing bitfield marker

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:49:37 +0000
Simon Ser <contact at emersion.fr> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:43 PM, Victor Berger <victor.berger at m4x.org> wrote:
> > 20 août 2019 13:30 "Simon Ser" contact at emersion.fr a écrit:
> >  
> > > So now the question is: some scanners may have generated some code from
> > > presentation-time.xml. Some scanners may generate different code for
> > > bitfields, maybe breaking ABI. Is it fine to add the bitfield
> > > attribute?
> > > For instance, wayland-rs seems to be generating different code:
> > > https://github.com/Smithay/wayland-rs/blob/master/wayland-scanner/src/common_gen.rs#L33
> > > Adding Victor Berger to the discussion.  
> >
> > I can't talk for other projects, but in the case of wayland-rs this
> > kind of corrections to the protocol files is very much welcome. Our
> > scanner makes use of these annotation to generate appropriate APIs,
> > and in this specific case the absence of the annotation makes it
> > generate wrong code. So from wayland-rs point of view this is a
> > bugfix, and thus not in contraction with stability. Especially
> > given wayland-rs has not yet reached stability and is still likely
> > to change, I'll just bump the version number when updating
> > wayland-protocols.  
> 
> Thanks for your feedback! I'll wait for thoughts from Pekka before
> doing anything, but I'd like to get these fixed too.

Hi,

I don't recall hearing much from people with custom code generating
scanners, so until we upset someone and they come to us complaining
about regressions the first time, I am fine with adding these
annotations that do not break the ABI generated by wayland-scanner.

When we started introducing these new attributes that may "break" the
consumers of code generated by custom scanners, we had a discussion
about this very issue. If I remember right, everyone involved at the
time were happy with the "break" since the benefits will be greater
than the damage in the long run. IIRC Victor was there then, and he
said the same now.

From my behalf:

Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>

Do you need me to land this?

Since wayland-protocols is still using email workflow, please give all
your Reviewed-by and Acked-by tags explicitly.


Thanks,
pq

> 
> > To be honest, I was thinking about making a pass on all the
> > protocols to add all relevant bitfield / enum annotations when I
> > get some time to do it (so "someday").  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20190830/b49ec33f/attachment.sig>