Status of xserver/debrix/modular tree?

[Bernardo Innocenti]

Felix Kühling wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.02.2005, 04:34 +0100 schrieb Bernardo Innocenti:
>>Thank you!  Checking it out right now...  I'll let you know as soon
>>as I find some time to test it.  Could you please update the wiki and
>>restore the link to it from the Software page?
> 
> Updating the Wiki is really something, non-coding X-enthusiasts (like
> you) can do. All you need to do is register (it's free) and start
> working on the documentation. Since you follow the mailing list already
> you'd be in the ideal position to keep the Wiki up-to-date.

Thank you, I already registered some time ago, but avoided
making any changes because I wasn't sure it was allowed.


>>As silly as I may seem, I did miss it.  Now I've browsed
>>through February's xorg archives and I still can't find it.
>>What's the exact subject?
> 
> February is a quite narrow time frame. You should check at least January
> 2005 and December 2004 too. Also, subjects are not always very
> meaningful. For example some discussions were started by controversial
> CVS commits, thus the subjects are something like "CVS Update: xc
> (branch: trunk)". Another interesting thread (in December) is
> "xc/programs considered harmful", as mentioned before in this thread.

I'm now subscribed to the list so I'm much more likely not
to miss such things.  As anyone, I must use some heuristics
to find interesting threads in mailing-lists, and the subject
contributes with the highest coefficient ;-)


>>The only explanation I can give is that people come here and
>>see little activity on the mailing-lists, they get no idea
>>what the other developers are doing and what the future
>>direction is.  So they just loose faith and go away.
> 
> I don't think the problem is too little activity on the mailing lists.
> In my eyes good technical discussions are happening on the list, though
> maybe the range of subjects discussed in this way is still too narrow.
> The flame-nature of some threads shows that some topics like
> modularization are still very immature. There may be 1 or 2 people with
> a clear picture of how things are going to be, but that doesn't mean
> that everyone else agrees with that view. I hope the modularization
> working group will be a big step forward by creating a common
> understanding and consensus of what the plans and goals are. This is the
> basis for technical discussions, as opposed to the rather ideological
> ones we were seeing on the list up to now.

I 100% agree.

Saying that we should just code instead of talking is like
saying we should run faster before we've yet decided where
we want to go.


> Hopefully, once the developers already involved have a clear idea of
> where they are heading more people will start contributing to the Xorg
> project(s).

I think so too.

-- 
  // Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/  http://www.develer.com/