On 7/27/07, dragoran <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/27/07, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote: > > Given that test1 is around the corner, I thought it might be a good idea > > to give a little status update on the features that the desktop team has > > been working on for F8: > > what happend to compiz-fusion?I've been punting this issue for a while; sorry about that, I should have been more involed in the debate there. I have two concerns about the proposed updates: 1) I'd rather not ship a git snap shot for fedora 8. If we know that there's a stable release on the horizon, that is, coming out withing the next 1 or 2 months, we can do an update, but if there's no expectation that a stable release is coming out in time for fedora 8, I'd rather wait. The concern here is mainly that we're starting to ship externally packaged plugins for compiz and we need an upstream maintenence branch (0.6) that maintains a stable plugin API. I don't know what the compiz schedule is for the current development branch but it still sees plugin API breaking changes at this time. As far as I know, there's hasn't been a stable release since the merge, but if most of the API changes to allow beryl plugins to run have been merged, maybe it would be a good idea to wind down and release 0.6? 2) I don't know what the current status is on config plugins. I know there is interest in getting ccp configured as the default backend, but I don't know what the benefits of that is over gconf. I understand that gconf is GNOME specific, but I was thinking that the better approach was to move gconf and gtk-window-decorator to a new compiz-gnome subpackage. What is the compiz upstream position? My position is that we need to use the native configuration system of the desktop environment (that is, gconf when running under GNOME) and reinventing new config file formats is almost never the right approach (no matter how fun it is). Kristian
2007/7/27, Kristian H?gsberg <krh at bitplanet.net>:> On 7/27/07, dragoran <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/27/07, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > Given that test1 is around the corner, I thought it might be a good idea > > > to give a little status update on the features that the desktop team has > > > been working on for F8: > > > > what happend to compiz-fusion? > > I've been punting this issue for a while; sorry about that, I should > have been more involed in the debate there. I have two concerns about > the proposed updates: > > 1) I'd rather not ship a git snap shot for fedora 8. If we know that > there's a stable release on the horizon, that is, coming out withing > the next 1 or 2 months, we can do an update, but if there's no > expectation that a stable release is coming out in time for fedora 8, > I'd rather wait. The concern here is mainly that we're starting to > ship externally packaged plugins for compiz and we need an upstream > maintenence branch (0.6) that maintains a stable plugin API. I don't > know what the compiz schedule is for the current development branch > but it still sees plugin API breaking changes at this time. As far as > I know, there's hasn't been a stable release since the merge, but if > most of the API changes to allow beryl plugins to run have been > merged, maybe it would be a good idea to wind down and release 0.6? >As far as I know this is already planned. compiz-fusion guys are almost ready for a release of the community plugins and such, so that the compiz "core" release should be followed by a compiz-fusion release.> 2) I don't know what the current status is on config plugins. I know > there is interest in getting ccp configured as the default backend, > but I don't know what the benefits of that is over gconf. I > understand that gconf is GNOME specific, but I was thinking that the > better approach was to move gconf and gtk-window-decorator to a new > compiz-gnome subpackage. What is the compiz upstream position? My > position is that we need to use the native configuration system of the > desktop environment (that is, gconf when running under GNOME) and > reinventing new config file formats is almost never the right approach > (no matter how fun it is). >ccp is not exactly like gconf, since you can still just use gconf through ccp. libcompizconfig is a kind of interface between the configuration backends (that is, gconf, kconfig or just an ini file for now) and compiz or other apps, such as ccsm (a configuration manager) or even other tools such as fusion-icon (a tray icon to switch between WMs). With libcompizconfig, these applications are sure they will alter compiz configuration whatever the backend is.> Kristian > _______________________________________________ > compiz mailing list > compiz at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz >
On 7/27/07, Kristian H?gsberg <krh at bitplanet.net> wrote:> > On 7/27/07, dragoran <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/27/07, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > Given that test1 is around the corner, I thought it might be a good > idea > > > to give a little status update on the features that the desktop team > has > > > been working on for F8: > > > > what happend to compiz-fusion? > > I've been punting this issue for a while; sorry about that, I should > have been more involed in the debate there. I have two concerns about > the proposed updates: > > 1) I'd rather not ship a git snap shot for fedora 8. If we know that > there's a stable release on the horizon, that is, coming out withing > the next 1 or 2 months, we can do an update, but if there's no > expectation that a stable release is coming out in time for fedora 8, > I'd rather wait. The concern here is mainly that we're starting to > ship externally packaged plugins for compiz and we need an upstream > maintenence branch (0.6) that maintains a stable plugin API. I don't > know what the compiz schedule is for the current development branch > but it still sees plugin API breaking changes at this time. As far as > I know, there's hasn't been a stable release since the merge, but if > most of the API changes to allow beryl plugins to run have been > merged, maybe it would be a good idea to wind down and release 0.6?I asked about this a while ago and David wanted to release a 0.5.2 and a 0.6.0 a bit later... what happend to this? David? 2) I don't know what the current status is on config plugins. I know> there is interest in getting ccp configured as the default backend, > but I don't know what the benefits of that is over gconf. I > understand that gconf is GNOME specific, but I was thinking that the > better approach was to move gconf and gtk-window-decorator to a new > compiz-gnome subpackage. What is the compiz upstream position? My > position is that we need to use the native configuration system of the > desktop environment (that is, gconf when running under GNOME) and > reinventing new config file formats is almost never the right approach > (no matter how fun it is).ccp has a gconf and a konf backend so we can just use this. the benefit over gconf are the configuration tools that already exist for it. there was a thread on fedora-devel-list about this... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/attachments/20070727/d770ebe2/attachment.htm
David? On 7/27/07, Kristian H?gsberg <krh at bitplanet.net> wrote:> On 7/27/07, dragoran <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/27/07, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote: > > > Given that test1 is around the corner, I thought it might be a good idea > > > to give a little status update on the features that the desktop team has > > > been working on for F8: > > > > what happend to compiz-fusion? > > I've been punting this issue for a while; sorry about that, I should > have been more involed in the debate there. I have two concerns about > the proposed updates: > > 1) I'd rather not ship a git snap shot for fedora 8. If we know that > there's a stable release on the horizon, that is, coming out withing > the next 1 or 2 months, we can do an update, but if there's no > expectation that a stable release is coming out in time for fedora 8, > I'd rather wait. The concern here is mainly that we're starting to > ship externally packaged plugins for compiz and we need an upstream > maintenence branch (0.6) that maintains a stable plugin API. I don't > know what the compiz schedule is for the current development branch > but it still sees plugin API breaking changes at this time. As far as > I know, there's hasn't been a stable release since the merge, but if > most of the API changes to allow beryl plugins to run have been > merged, maybe it would be a good idea to wind down and release 0.6? > > 2) I don't know what the current status is on config plugins. I know > there is interest in getting ccp configured as the default backend, > but I don't know what the benefits of that is over gconf. I > understand that gconf is GNOME specific, but I was thinking that the > better approach was to move gconf and gtk-window-decorator to a new > compiz-gnome subpackage. What is the compiz upstream position? My > position is that we need to use the native configuration system of the > desktop environment (that is, gconf when running under GNOME) and > reinventing new config file formats is almost never the right approach > (no matter how fun it is). > > Kristian >