Re: XFree86's Future and thoughts and suggestions

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:44:00PM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 01, 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>
>>Core != commit access.  I'm not sure where that myth came from,
>>but it has never been true.  There are 14 people with commit access,
>>not all of them are core members, and not all core members have
>>commit access.  I don't have an answer as to why only 2 committers
>>regularly deal with general submissions, with a few others dealing
>>with specific submissions.  Maybe we don't have the right 14.
>
>Fair enough, I don't know how many there really are.
>
>>How many people can commit directly to the mainline Linux kernel?
>>From what you're saying, it sounds like these maintainers submit
>>patches to one person (Linus) rather than committing them into the
>>mainline kernel themselves?  Is that correct?  XFree86 has 14 people
>>who can commit into the mainline XFree86 tree, and anyone can submit
>>patches to this group, whether they be people who set themselves
>>up as maintainers who collect submissions from others, or people
>>who want to submit their patches directly.
>
>There is no CVS to commit with Linux, It's all done though patches and 
>patchsets (from other people's BK trees of the kernel)the closest we come to 
>CVS is Linus's BK kernel tree. But this is not open to anyone *except* Linus 
>himself.

OK, so the Linux kernel model doesn't correspond at all to the
model you're suggesting XFree86 adopt.  That's what I thought, and
actually XFree86 allows more people to *directly* change the mainline
code.  Linus avoids the privilege abuse that XFree86 experienced
recently by restricting full control of the mainline code to himself.
You originally said it's a matter of control, and it appears that
the Linux model is more tightly controlled than the current XFree86
one.  I doubt that you're suggesting XFree86 move in that direction.

>>Unless I'm missing something, you're using the Linux kernel model
>>as justification for changes that don't match the Linux kernel
>>model.  I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're getting at,
>>so if I am missing something, please let me know what it is.
>
>Well, you or some person (like Linus) should be able to accept or reject 
>patches from the sub-maintainers of components of XFree86 perhaps.

How is that different from what happens right now?  [Well, it is
different in that XFree86 has more than one person in that role,
but other than that?]

>>You haven't explained to me why they don't have that input right
>>now.  Unless you're saying that they can only communicate it via
>>'cvs commit'.
>
>Not commit access, There just seems to be a lack of ideas coming from the 
>different communities. Or, some of the ideas are so radical they break the 
>X11 protocol. This is *NOT* XFree86's fault, but I don't know why this is. I 
>hope this forum will change that.

I think the "community" collectively should decide what the real issues are
before proposing the solutions.

Speaking for myself.

David