Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 132

Thread: Why Wayland & Weston Were Forked

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    So why didn't you explain all this on the mailing list when you were asked repeatedly there?
    See the very first post in this thread. Thanks.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    <double_post>
    This user is double posting the same ridiclous nonsense.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soreau View Post
    Darxus and Daniel's mud-slinging works throughout this ordeal are frivolous, unwarranted, unnecessary, childish, completely ridiculous and an outright waste of everyone's time.
    Are you saying that you did nothing wrong? You don't think you were rude and abusive at all? Are you the only victim here? Why do you think that Daniel and Darxus got the idea that you are? I'm not terribly interested in FOSS drama and I don't know the details of this case but I your lack of self-criticism is not very convincing.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soreau View Post
    See the very first post in this thread. Thanks.
    I don't see the answer to the question in there.

    You were willing to go to great lengths to explain your reason here, so you obviously thought spending the time to explain it was worthwhile, but you did it here instead of on the mailing list where you were specifically asked (and not by Darxus or Daniel, either, you were asked by Casey, Pekka, Thaigo, and Tiago).
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 03-29-2013 at 04:01 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soreau View Post
    One comment that I hope this post answers is one by Darxus, an influential personality that has been a consistent problem against me. Taken from the GH-Next phoronix article comments:

    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...971#post321971

    “Also, lets not forget that soreau was not banned due to his lack of social grace alone. The final straw was his refusal to use an existing mechanism to retain protocol compatibility when making his needed protocol changes, insisting on doing it in a way that would break things, without providing a reason”

    First of all, for the record, Darxus is not a core wayland developer. If you would like to be the judge, please refer to his wayland/weston commits. Second of all, this is a completely false statement. It also has a very tyrannical tone to it. The implication is that I am not compliant with certain fabricated 'rules'.
    No, it's not false. You wrote a four page article explaining why you forked weston instead of just creating a new shell plugin, when that was not the issue. The issue was why you forked wayland (the protocol library), instead of forking only weston, copying the existing protocol from wayland into your weston fork, and making your needed protocol changes there - using the existing mechanism to retain protocol compatibility.

    As people have repeatedly attempted to explain to you: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ch/008172.html

    Retaining protocol compatibility, when there is an easy, already provided way to do it, is not a "fabricated 'rule'". It is the generally accepted way of writing software.

    --- Day changed Tue Mar 26 2013
    12:07PM <@krh> the fork is fine, the drama around it wasnt


    "I am not going to point fingers here because I do not think this is the fault of any one particular individual."

    Quote Originally Posted by soreau View Post
    Darxus and Daniel's mud-slinging works throughout this ordeal are frivolous, unwarranted, unnecessary, childish, completely ridiculous and an outright waste of everyone's time – with specific intent to damage my public image.
    That didn't last long.


    "I would also like to see people come together and work things out despite misunderstandings and interest conflicts."

    --- Day changed Tue Mar 12 2013
    12:28 < soreau> I DONT GIVE A SHIT what you ignorant people think about attitude, politics and a bunch of crap that doesn't even matter
    ...
    12:32 < Darxus> soreau: FYI, not giving a shit about people is exactly your problem.
    12:32 < soreau> Darxus: You're a fucking idiot


    One of these was intended for a public audience, the other was sincere.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,517

    Default

    That was an interesting read, yes. I thought to myself, "hey, maybe this time people will stick to the technical side of the discussion, given that this post is all about that." A few seconds later, "nah, who am I kidding, this is Phoronix, this will degenerate into trolling sooner than one could blink..." Then I read the first comment, and soreau himself is giving people more troll bait. Oh come on...

    But speaking about the technical side, I see both sides now, and both have a point. Wayland developers are trying to settle down at this point, so that something bad doesn't happen, now that it's past 1.0. All changes need a lot of thinking and testing now. And Northfield developers, on the other hand, want to work on the compositor to take advantage of all the power that Wayland allows, compared to X. Though due to certain things that are not yet finished in Wayland, they can't really proceed further. They can, however, use some makeshift changes that do allow them to move forward, even if in a somewhat unorthodox manner. Or at least that's what I've gathered of the overall situation.

    Overall that isn't much of an issue. The biggest question now is whether Northfield will be able to adapt to the changes in Wayland, once the missing functionality gets implemented officially. If yes, then perfect, in the end Northfield will not be needed and we'll just have Norwood, the non-reference Wayland compositor, that can run on stock Wayland without any patches. But if not, there could be further complications.

    As for the EGL problem... I suppose that's something that the Mesa developers should answer. In theory, you could fork Mesa into Plateau or something, but I don't think there really is a need or motivation to do so, since it's just one unimplemented feature, and it's pretty far from the display server anyway.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Wayland developers are trying to settle down at this point, so that something bad doesn't happen, now that it's past 1.0. All changes need a lot of thinking and testing now. And Northfield developers, on the other hand, want to work on the compositor to take advantage of all the power that Wayland allows, compared to X.
    No, that's not it at all. Although that does seem to be what Scott wants you to think. Or maybe he's genuinely that confused. The wayland developers are all entirely happy with what Scott wants to do - fork weston and the necessary wayland protocol code and develop it into a more usable and fancy desktop environment. That's great. That's basically what weston is for. Others have forked it, and the response was good (everybody even responded positively to ubuntu forking it).

    He explained why he couldn't do it in a plugin alone - which wasn't even relevant.

    What he has failed to explain is why he couldn't do as requested and copy the existing protocol code into a new extension and edit it there, to use the existing mechanism to retain protocol compatibility.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That was an interesting read, yes. I thought to myself, "hey, maybe this time people will stick to the technical side of the discussion, given that this post is all about that." A few seconds later, "nah, who am I kidding, this is Phoronix, this will degenerate into trolling sooner than one could blink..." Then I read the first comment, and soreau himself is giving people more troll bait. Oh come on...
    hehe :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    But speaking about the technical side, I see both sides now, and both have a point. Wayland developers are trying to settle down at this point, so that something bad doesn't happen, now that it's past 1.0. All changes need a lot of thinking and testing now. And Northfield developers, on the other hand, want to work on the compositor to take advantage of all the power that Wayland allows, compared to X. Though due to certain things that are not yet finished in Wayland, they can't really proceed further. They can, however, use some makeshift changes that do allow them to move forward, even if in a somewhat unorthodox manner. Or at least that's what I've gathered of the overall situation.

    Overall that isn't much of an issue. The biggest question now is whether Northfield will be able to adapt to the changes in Wayland, once the missing functionality gets implemented officially. If yes, then perfect, in the end Northfield will not be needed and we'll just have Norwood, the non-reference Wayland compositor, that can run on stock Wayland without any patches. But if not, there could be further complications.

    As for the EGL problem... I suppose that's something that the Mesa developers should answer. In theory, you could fork Mesa into Plateau or something, but I don't think there really is a need or motivation to do so, since it's just one unimplemented feature, and it's pretty far from the display server anyway.
    Yes, I am happy I was able to help you understand. Thanks for your support.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48

    Default Yet Another Technical Concern

    One technical concern I forgot to mention was one that I just noticed when a user notified me about a problem when using the window list (taskbar) found in northfield/norwood. The problem is, that there is supposed to be a protocol versioning system in place so that you can make additions to the protocol and increment the relevant interface version number. In theory, this is supposed to work in a way that clients would only use the highest interface version it supports locally, to avoid problems with potential crashes when related events/requests are processed. It is yet another technical problem involving the protocol interface versioning system. See the very bottom of http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ch/008084.html

    My questions there have yet to answered. I tried to work out a solution to this problem with them but they seem like they don't want this new stuff to happen in the first place for some reason. I followed protocol but the version control system is broken by design apparently.

    - Scott

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darxus View Post
    No, that's not it at all. Although that does seem to be what Scott wants you to think. Or maybe he's genuinely that confused. The wayland developers are all entirely happy with what Scott wants to do - fork weston and the necessary wayland protocol code and develop it into a more usable and fancy desktop environment. That's great. That's basically what weston is for. Others have forked it, and the response was good (everybody even responded positively to ubuntu forking it).
    All right, so what do you think is not correct in my interpretation? I mean, I don't suppose Wayland developers are happy with fast changes to the protocol at this point, and I don't suppose Northfield developers are happy with the slow and steady pace of Wayland development? Or were you referring to something else? Because I agree with what you said here and I don't really see a contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darxus View Post
    He explained why he couldn't do it in a plugin alone - which wasn't even relevant.

    What he has failed to explain is why he couldn't do as requested and copy the existing protocol code into a new extension and edit it there, to use the existing mechanism to retain protocol compatibility.
    An interesting question. If it's possible to create an extension to the protocol itself, and then dump all the necessary unorthodox changes to the protocol there, then it would seem that it would be overall easier for Northfield developers to maintain it in the first place, and also more easily remove duplicate functionality once it gets implemented into Wayland. Any technical reasons why you can't do that, soreau?

    By the way, thanks for contributing to the technical discussion without the whole drama, it's very much appreciated!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •