LG events.c changes (was "Re: ")

[Deron Johnson]

Jesse Barnes wrote On 01/04/06 11:34,:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:31 am, Deron Johnson wrote:
> 
>>What is the Xorg architectural process for determining the
>>resolution of this issue. Do you folks call for a vote on it?
>>And who is included in the vote? And do I have a vote?
> 
> 
> I don't know, I'm not familiar with the historical X Arch. Board 
> processes, but I was hoping that technical decisions like this could be 
> made on the list by consensus.  I.e. we should choose the best technical 
> solution on merit, and the developer submitting them should address any 
> objections or comments that arise with new code or reasoned arguments.  
> IMO the board should only step in as a final arbiter when irreconcilable 
> arguments occur...
> 
> Jesse

This was my understanding as well. But I'm new to the process and
I have no idea how "consensus" is determined.

In other open source groups I have worked with, people on the
alias vote with a "+" to accept the proposal, a "-" to reject
the proposal and a "0" to abstain.

Paul Anderson told me that the processes for reviewing and
adopting Xorg architectural changes are not well established
so in some sense LG is a test case for this process.

So, the specific issue at hand is as follows:

+ Should the LG event changes be done via function pointers?
    Pros: Would group all of the LG event changes into one place.
          Would minimize ifdefs.
    Cons: First major structural change to event code in 2 decades.
	  Adds several new pointer deferences to the event pipeline.

Please discuss amongst yourselves how you intend to go about
resolving this issue and what the resolution is, and then let
me know. Thanks.

	-Deron