Re: Revert of my compositing rework patches

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 6:52 PM David Edmundson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:28 PM Roman Gilg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I offer to revert the compositing rework patches that I have landed on KWin's master branch in the last few months such that they won't be included in the 5.18 release. I have done this already in a personal branch some days ago:
> > https://cgit.kde.org/clones/kwin/romangilg/kwin.git/log/?h=composite-revert
>
> FWIW, I do appreciate the general direction and overall goal of that patchset.
>
> I did at one point have a proposal that we start an official upstream
> branch where we can work on this without the risk of hitting a
> deadline. They always come quicker than you think. That's still a
> viable option that we can continue. Especially if we need people to
> take over Fredrick's work.

I don't believe a mere branch will just cut it. This will relax the
situation short-term but sooner or later the same problems we have now
will creep into this branch too.

> > Reverts were possible with minimal conflict resolution and runtime tests on top of this branch indicated that the revert works fine.
> >
> > Reasons for reverting are:
> > * The Nvidia swap event patch hasn't yet landed to optimize in that case.
> > * Some minor regressions had been crept up and there might be more.
> > * My patches weren't formally accepted when I landed them, another maintainer complained about that.
> > * I don't see a positive future for the KWin project as it is currently organized on a fundamental level. Because of this I don't want to maintain these large code changes ongoing.
> >
> > Simple yes/no from the other two maintainers is enough. If they both want to keep the compositing rework patches in one of them is responsible for acting on related bug reports afterwards.
>
> If you're not comfortable with the patchset, then I'm happy to agree.
> You know this series best.
> What is your longer term plan with the patchset?
>
> I think there's some changes there that are lower risk, so a revert
> doesn't need to include all of them.
> It's really only "Flexible composite swap and timer events" that has
> the most user-facing impact?

I am relatively comfortable with the patchset from a technical side
given the knowledge I currently possess. I don't know what
"user-facing impact" means here, the patches make only sense together.
Independent of that though: this is not about risk aversion but risk
acceptance.

> Regards
>
> David