[Xcb] Next Release? (was: [PATCH] Build xcb-xkb by default)

[Uli Schlachter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

on IRC, someone (*cough* Daniel Stone *cough*) asked about the next release
again. Apparently, having working xcb-xkb and xcb-sync is kind of a big deal.

So let's make a list of issues which could block a release:

On 06.08.2013 19:55, Uli Schlachter wrote:
[...]
> Also, we have "fix deadlock with xcb_take_socket/return_socket v3" in git
> and I think I remember that someone wanted some more testing & making sure
> that this commit is good before doing a release.

Jamey asked for holding back releases until we have some clear picture on
this. I don't want to try to summarize the discussion, so the relevant mail
(and the thread that it belongs to) can be found here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2013-June/008340.html

There is also the following patch from Christian and the replies to it.
However, I don't mind ignoring it for now (but would be happy if we could
reach some consensus about it):
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2013-May/008272.html

[...]
> Also, I just remembered that there is a bug against xcb-xkb: 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51295

It seems like the general consensus here is that this can be ignored for now.
I don't have any strong opinions about this, mostly because I have not much
clue about xcb-xkb.

There are also lots of new patches on the list (Thanks Daniel Martin and Ran
Benita!). Of these, only "A few more XKB fixes" sounds important. The last
patch of that series was NAK'd, the first two are fine to go in?
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2013-August/008509.html

And of course there are the branches that Daniel Martin prepared to make
merging patches easier for the lazy of us. Sadly, I haven't had the time to
look at this again.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2013-August/008527.html

[This is the time and place where you write a reply and list all the issues
that I forgot about]

Cheers,
Uli

P.S.: We want new libxcb and xcb-proto releases, right? We need libxcb to
enable xcb-xkb by default and xcb-proto for lots of random fixes? Does this
mean, that the new libxcb should depend on thw new xcb-proto release?

P.P.S: Are we aiming for libxcb 1.10 and xcb-proto 1.9? Or both 1.10 and proto
skips 1.9? Or something completely different?
- -- 
- - Captain, I think I should tell you I've never
  actually landed a starship before.
- - That's all right, Lieutenant, neither have I.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSDj8+AAoJECLkKOvLj8sG7MwH/0Ve6vMi3JtTNCmKdeRteW2L
OzrnNmnyVRtdISK+xlnB7QqOoRjA+RrI/kZ0RyzV0lusMLEWWoB605DSoeNlr4Dl
4pxJdjnwBwABKE31EO8dbtS6vwGBcHFHWqQVR++1F5obTu6HnjeC4Ir/8iw2Nw9e
z/zTUIDxPtMNH8dVfFiTum9jXpMclD6f6MVRuBm9RE9PRCBmaeQ3sGRv9/SEEsk5
9w+/xqcS59Fzqm935JPLr7lopiJ/XgYRvS2Rzr5NQc13ghDxQrYIy8topmZod2Oz
Wzs4OGYAPd13sYR38Uu7+E8nY7TjlxtelV0HNV9lbRSZHnXfKd8HDeRmX5YUGL0=
=g8OM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----