First, I agree, with moving useful/mature features to mir_demo_server. To
the name "playground" and voting, if it was voted on and implemented we
should follow the convention. Or rename & update readmes...we just need to
fix it.
What we have at the moment seems contradictory and confusing (e.g.
enc
>> Definitely not suggesting it's not useful, or that we should remove it.
I am suggesting both. I think we've found uses for it given its existence
but it's existence is overall harmful.
I think mir_demo_server is just as useful for testing downstream projects.
Neither is useful for testing Unit
Definitely not suggesting it's not useful, or that we should remove it. But
"playground" (I am not a big fan of the name either) has one specific
purpose stated previously but now includes code that doesn't contribute to
that purpose (again, it does contribute to other just as useful purposes).
Wh
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Daniel van Vugt <
daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote:
> All the features are useful. And use of the word "playground" was not my
> choice (I was outvoted). They have all been used to develop other features
> or to diagnose bugs in Mir, or soon will be used when I
All the features are useful. And use of the word "playground" was not my
choice (I was outvoted). They have all been used to develop other
features or to diagnose bugs in Mir, or soon will be used when I find
the time. By function you can see them documented here:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~m
+1 for removal. I'm not aware of any downstream requirements for features
in proving server. I'm also not aware of any downstream intentions to
customize the renderer in the fashion used by proving server.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Cemil Azizoglu wrote:
> I agree with Alberto that we shoul
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Cemil Azizoglu wrote:
> I agree with Alberto that we should try to get (people) away from using
> playground as a validation tool and onto mir_demo_server (after 0.13). We
> then move the renderer related things to the public realm.
>
> Reiterating the original int
I agree with Alberto that we should try to get (people) away from using
playground as a validation tool and onto mir_demo_server (after 0.13). We
then move the renderer related things to the public realm.
Reiterating the original intent of the playground area : An area to
experiment with interface
Once we release mir 0.13 we can tell our colleagues to use mir_demo_server
instead.
>From what I can see, features missing from the demo server in comparison to
proving server are mostly cosmetic. If they are not, can Daniel list the
features that are missing?
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:40 PM, D
The proving server definitely needs to move out of playground/, and rely on
the public API's. I would think that the public api's are more-or-less
equivalent to what the proving_server is doing privately, and where they
differ is a healthy topic to explore what we want to do about it. IMHO, We
twis
Despite your tone it appears that we agree that "playground" (I'm not
belittling - that name has nothing to do with me) no longer serves its
stated purpose: there is no "private in-flux mir functionality" there.
What is there is mir_proving_server which is useful to you and "our
colleagues testing
Last I checked mir_proving_server was more functional and less buggy
than our other example servers. That and our colleagues tend to use it
as their primary development platform when testing toolkit/app ports. So
mir_proving_server is important and should be reworked to use any newer
APIs you w
12 matches
Mail list logo
