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

[Simon Ser]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 10:45 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <contact at emersion.fr>

> From my behalf:
>
> Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen pekka.paalanen at collabora.com
>
> Do you need me to land this?

(I believe so.)

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