[Xcb] About next release of xcb/util

Julien Danjou julien at danjou.info
Thu Mar 25 00:57:09 PDT 2010

Barton C Massey <bart at cs.pdx.edu> writes:

> I think it's a close call whether to merge keyboard, but I
> don't really see any organizational issue in doing so.
> What's the expected trouble case here?  It will mean
> frequent upgrades of the merged library, but AFAICT we can
> live with that.

We can totally live with that.

>> Review from previous messages in this thread already
>> suggested that much of xcb-aux seems unnecessary,
> Strongly disagree.  After much discussion, I still think
> that most of us agree that most of xcb-aux is quite useful.
> AFAICT we identified exactly one function that should die.
> Horribly.  By fire.


>> and you already mentioned that event, reply, and property
>> mostly need to die.
> Yes, we are now proposing splitting those and maybe killing
> them.

I confirm.

>> We should probably do an equally careful review of atom,
>> icccm, and ewmh, to figure out what of those needs to
>> survive and what doesn't.
> Feel free. :-) As much as I'm not a fan of a lot of the code
> in atom, I'm not sure what I would do without it if I was
> doing anything substantial with XCB. I think the client-side
> icccm and ewmh stuff is also pretty essential to writing
> clients for the most part.  Feelings on whether to sort it
> out from the wm-side stuff seem pretty mixed.

Being, with Arnaud, probably the major contributor of this last year to
xcb-util, I can tell you that there's almost no need to review ICCCM and
EWMH since they just have the mininum set of function written the best
we could.

OTOH as I already said, reply/property/event needs to probably be merged
and disappear. There's some very interesting #define in xcb_event, but
the rest of the libs may die IMHO.

> I don't think anybody should split anything until we have a
> sensible plan.  XCB is already a twisty maze of tiny Git
> repos; if we're going to multiply that even further, I want
> to do it only once every few years and get it as right as we
> can.

I agree.

Since Bart and me seems to agree on my plan, and Josh seems to just add
a "we need to review before merging" which was kind of implicit in my
last email: can I say we all agree? :-)

Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <julien at danjou.info>   http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20100325/c8f4677b/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Xcb mailing list