Status of xserver/debrix/modular tree?

[Daniel Stone]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:28:55AM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> The Xserver wiki page says the project is dead, pointing
> users to Debrix.  The link to Debrix, however, has
> disappeared from FreeDesktop's Software directory and
> the Arch repository doesn't work any more.
> 
> Actually, the page was still there:
>  http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fdebrix
> 
> ...so I found out that Debrix migrated from arch to bazaar.
> I tried checking it out, but it's mostly old stuff which
> doesn't even build.

Interesting.  If you check out daniel at fooishbar.org/debrix--devel--0.1
(as opposed to daniel at fooishbar.org--2004/...), it should build and work
fine.  I put in some work a few weeks ago into ensuring that you could
bootstrap cleanly from the bottom of xlibs to the top of Debrix, so it
should all work.

> The modular xlibs and xapps trees seem to receive very
> little development.  It also looks like they're not
> being kept in sync with the monolitic tree.  The XCB
> enabled libX11 would be a nice new feature which already
> works fine today.

Er, you do realise that the modular xlibs is fully in sync with the
modular tree?

> I'm curious about the future deriction of these projects?
> Is there a plan of some kind?  If so, where is it being
> discussed?

Some would argue that the future is modularisation.  Others have
argued that it's doomed to fail and we shouldn't even try.  That
debate is happening right now (on xorg@ -- it's very hard to miss),
and that will determine the future direction of the project.

> Unlike other OSS projects such as the Linux Kernel and
> GCC, there's very little talking in Xorg's mailing-lists:
> most are just dead, with the exception of xorg which
> has very little traffic.  Things just seem to "happen"
> in CVS as if there was private mail exchange between
> a few developers.

xserver@ and xlibs@ are considered dead lists, as we moved them to be
within xorg at .

As for the communication thing, well -- sometimes the communication
happens on IRC, or sometimes there just isn't any.  People know what
they have to do, and often do them.

There just isn't the critical mass of developers in xorg that I think
you think there is.0

> Reviewing patches in Bugzilla contributes to the lack
> of communication of this development model.
> 
> Both Linus Torvalds and Mark Mitchell periodically write
> status updates of some kind to keep people focused on
> a common goal.  The KDE and Mozilla projects publish
> long-term plans.
> 
> Never seen anything similar for the Xorg family of
> projects.  It's not even clear what the management
> roles are and who is in charge for them.
> 
> I know Xorg is based on volunteer work.  All OSS
> projects are.  I might have overseen something, but
> in order to be successful and attract more developers,
> Xorg appears to need more coordination/PR work.

X.Org's only position as relates to development right now is release
manager, which changes each release.  For the 6.7.x series, it was
Keith Packard, Egbert Eich and Kevin E. Martin; for 6.8.2 it has been
Roland Mainz.  I believe 6.8 was managed by Kevin again, and 6.8.1 was
managed by a bastard trio of myself, Kevin, and Egbert Eich.

Again, X.Org really does not have the critical mass you think it does.
Everyone is too busy working on code, really, and if you want to join
and contribute, you are invited to do so, but at the moment, the
project is desperately undermanned.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050210/942437a4/attachment.pgp>