Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Alan Griffiths
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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Kevin DuBois
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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Alberto Aguirre
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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Cemil Azizoglu
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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Thomas Voß
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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Robert Carr
+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

Re: RFC Playground

2015-04-01 Thread Daniel van Vugt
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