Sorry for the delay, catching up on my emails now. Responding to Daniel as the other emails don't have much actionable stuff, but I read everything on this thread. Thanks for the feedback!
On 2019-04-08 6:18 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > On the members-only front, I think it's important for us to be open > and accessible to new voices, and not create a larger, more > documented, cabal. I think the list should definitely be open to > public discussion and contribution. Especially if we're developing > protocols which are focused on external interaction, we'll want to be > able to have experts from those areas contribute. Alright, let's drop the members-only requirement. > On the mailing list front, I think wayland-devel@ is probably quiet > enough these days - and focused on common protocol-like stuff - that > we could probably just reuse that list. -1, it's way too noisy imo. > But that being said, I would strongly advocate for doing review > through GitLab. For the implementations and users I can think of - > Chromium, EFL, Enlightenment, Firefox, GStreamer, GTK, KWin, Mesa, > Mutter, Qt, SDL, Weston, wlroots - plus Wayland core itself, all of > them use web review tools (Bugzilla x1, Gerrit, GitHub, GitLab, > Phabricator, Reitveld x1) as their sole review method with the > exception of Mesa, which also allows mailing-list submissions. I get > that sr.ht is working on a decent mailing-list review workflow, but > what we have today with Patchwork definitely isn't that. I'll begrudgingly concede to patch review on Gitlab, even if it's 10x more work to get your patches out there. I think that discussions ought to stay on a mailing list, though. It's just a better medium for them, and everyone has an email account. > Given that, I'm prepared to push hard for using web-based review as > the status-quo for how we all do our own protocol development anyway. I'll guess I'll just formally register a strong NACK, but I feel like I'm shouting at a tree. I know it's hard to turn a blind eye to my vested interests in mailing list driven development, but even on GNU mailman I prefer mailing lists. There's a reason I built my platform that way, after all. I genuinely think it's a better model. > > c. Each project must provide an individual point-of-contact for that > > project who > > can be reached to discuss protocol-related matters. > > I'd probably bikeshed this to 'named individuals', so we don't lose > protocol development just because someone's on holiday. +1 > > c. The "xdg" namespace is established for protocols useful for implementing > > desktop-like systems. > > I still think 'catch-all window management' is a better definition > here - and I realise now I left this hanging on the other thread, > sorry. Will reword this a bit for the v2. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
