[Xcb] to Ian Osgood

[Jamey Sharp]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:32:21PM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> Also, before changing xcb.h, i would like to point out that i've
> already made a patch for xcb.h, for the documentation of the API. it's
> in bugzilla. Maybe it will be better to first apply it. Jamey, can I
> apply it ?

I haven't had a chance to review your most recent patch, but I'm sure
it's fine. Please do commit. In general don't worry too much about
getting my permission before a commit, especially if I'm slow about
reviewing patches.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:01:51PM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Ian Osgood wrote:
> > (In fact, shouldn't we just remove them now? How many projects
> > besides Xlib and Cairo are using XCB?)
> 
> evas (a canvas library) and ecore. But i've written their port. And I
> maintain them. So any change in xcb is not a problem.

I was planning on asking that soon. Xlib has no deprecation warnings, so
we can ignore it. I imagine the Cairo XCB backend has bitrotted pretty
badly anyway so if we kill a few more functions the situation doesn't
really get worse.

So folks, you get probably a week to fix any deprecation warnings in
your XCB-using code before we finally kill off those functions. I might
reconsider given good cause, but really I expect nobody will care.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:02:18PM -0800, Ian Osgood wrote:
> > about your last patch about xcb : you are changing the location of
> > XCBGetAuthInfo from xcb_auth.c to xcb_util.c. Is it a good thing
> > (from a logical point of view) ?
> 
> I figured that since these are deprecated, we should put them all in
> one place so they can be removed easily.

That's fine with me.

Also, Ian, when I assigned that bug to you I hadn't realized that you'd
already committed all the deprecation fixes you'd shown me previously.
My mistake. :-)

> > In addition, in xcb.h, there are comment about the location of the
> > api functions wrt their files. Maybe you should change that too.
> 
> That makes sense to me. xcb.h should be about interface, not
> implementation.

I think Vincent was asking whether the comments should be made to point
to the right files :-) but just removing the filename comments would be
fine too.

--Jamey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20060313/e58fa111/attachment.pgp