[Xcb] About next release of xcb/util

[Josh Triplett]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:57:09AM +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Barton C Massey <bart at cs.pdx.edu> writes:
> >> 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.
> 
> Yup.

OK.

> >> 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.

Good enough for me.  I hadn't heard that information thus far in the
thread, and I just wanted to know that someone had looked carefully at
the libraries to make sure we didn't merge useful bits with crufty bits.
Sounds like you've already done that; thanks!

> 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.

Sounds good.

> > 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? :-)

Yup. :)

- Josh Triplett