Paul de Vrieze writes: > > I think he means that the process goes in a way that some people find a point > where something is missing from X. Then they implement the necesarry parts as > an extension after which X.org says it is an official X extension. This > compared to the approach where X.org sees a need for an extension. It designs > the extension, and all X providers are going to implement the extension > because it is official, but before knowing it works and is useful. > I don't want to start over a flamewar on X.org's process to adopt an extension. The second approach you have descirbed has never happened so far - as far as I know. The first apporach may work but the ball is in X.org's court to proove that it can adopt an extension swiftly. > > > > > Secondly, with regard to the future of XFree86: > > > > > > * There does not seem to be serious opposition to the idea that XFree86 > > > should be split into two trees: a stable tree and an unstable tree. > > > > Hm, two trees, two CVS? I don't opt for having two CVS repositories > > as it makes merging a pain. Instead we should use separate branches. > > In fact we have been using separate branches for the forthcoming release > > and for bugfixes for the old release. Unfortunately the bugfix branch > > never got used heavily. > > We should however create more experimental branches. This way > > new features can be made available for testing much easier. > > Once they have stabilized and agreed on merging back to the > > trunk should be no problem. > > I guess he meant that, two CVS's is nonsense, and not the consensus of the > list. OK. > > > > Drivers are about the only kind of modules that can be released > > separately without creating a major maintenance nightmare. > > New features in other modules change (or amend) the ABI. > > Currently we have no decend way to ensure that the ABIs of > > all modules match. We only have the overall ABI version > > number which is the same for every module of a certain > > version of the tree. > > > > What about extensions or client libs. Adding fontconfig/Xft-2 to XFree-4.2.1 > is very well possible. Of course this doesn't hold in all cases, but that are > implementation details. > Yes, client libs are different as long as they don't require an extension on the server side. We may be able to ship new extension modules as long as they dont require changes in the server core. Many extensions however do. Egbert.