Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:38:27 +0300 Oded Gabbay oded.gab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matt, Siarhei As you probably already know, my name is Oded Gabbay and I'm working at Red Hat Desktop graphics team, and my current focus is on ppc64le. During the last couple of months, I've been working on adding support for ppc64le to pixman (fixing vmx fast-paths and adding new implementation). Some of the patches have been upstreamed (by Pekka Paalanen) and some are in the process of review (by Siarhei and others). From reading the above email thread, and from talking to Soren, Pekka and others, I understand you may need some help, in terms of time and resources, for actively maintaining pixman (last release was 1 year ago). If that is indeed the case, I would like to offer my help to make regular releases for Pixman, both for upstream and Fedora, as well as do bug-triage and code reviews. I believe I have the available time to do it as I'm working 100% on graphics in Red Hat. In addition, as a Red Hat employee, I have the resources to build/test pixman on multitude of architectures, and use Fedora build system as well. moreover, I'm already the maintainer of a fairly large kernel gpu driver (amdkfd - upstream since February), so I have maintainer experience. So far I had already helped Pekka clean the patchwork site he setup and I will continue to make sure it is updated. In addition, I got packager role for pixman in Fedora, so I'm able to release new packages. Waiting for your response. Feel free to express your opinions - I already have thick skin from the kernel work ;) Hi Oded, I am very very happy to hear this! :-) Welcome! Thanks, pq pgpq53Vxl7OSy.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Matt Turner mattst88-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:46:10 -0700 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bill Spitzak spit...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/30/2015 10:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote: Do you just need someone to push them? I'm not capable of reviewing these. Since Søren isn't really maintaining pixman anymore I'm not really sure how to proceed. Is this true? I don't see anyone but Pekka reviewing patches and there hasn't been a release in 15 months, so yeah. I think something needs to be done about this as all new work on X and Cairo is depending on pixman. I mean, sure. I have had an outstanding patch set for 8 months now. Søren responded to an earlier version and I tried to address it but have not heard anything since. This is very frustrating as I would like to work on this but I'm not going to do it if it is useless. As far as I know, Søren isn't working at Redhat any more, so I don't think you can expect him to continue maintaining pixman. Ok. Søren, Matt, Siarhei, how can we get the Pixman maintenance communitized? Maybe a la libdrm, because no-one has the resources to become a dedicated maintainer? Seems fine to me, though I don't really feel like a pixman maintainer. :) What does it take to get push and release authorization, in the political sense that Pixman quality would not degrade and the current/old maintainers would approve? What kind of review policies should be enforced? Søren told me back in December on IRC Feel free to do a release. I'm happy to have people commit to pixman who have a track record of contributions to other X.Org projects. What development guidelines should there be? Should it be strictly no new API/ABI nor features, only performance work and new platform support like the latest new ARM? I'm not aware of any backwards-incompatible changes to pixman, at least in a really long time. Keeping that policy in place seems like a good idea. New APIs do happen. I think that's probably fine. If there is one person contributing arch or cpu-specific optimizations in assembly that no-one is willing to review apart from the scope of code changes and style, should we trust that one person and just land his work if he shows the performance numbers are good? I might be a bit biased in my answer, since I have some patches to the MMX code in my tree that I don't expect anyone to review, but yeah I think we should mostly trust the author (obviously depends on the author's credibility). I mean, I'm a newbie here. I don't want to hijack this project and push it only to my own directions, also because I cannot become a dedicated maintainer, nor promise to review anyone else's stuff. But, there are patches I'd like to see landed. I could work on them with Ben, but if there is no-one upstream to tell us what goes and what doesn't, we are left to our own judgement. Would you trust my and Ben's judgement so that I could land Ben's patches and make Pixman releases? I don't think you're hijacking at all. I think this conversation needed to happen sooner or later, though I do wish Søren or Siarhei could spend a little time on it. You probably don't have a good understanding about how I work and what kind of a developer I am, nor have that kind of trust in me. That is fine. We need time to build that trust through discussion and patches. But it's hard to have a discussion if no-one can reply. I also understand that because I will not promise to be a maintainer, there is less incentive in educating me. It is quite likely that I hang around here for a while and then wander off when my needs are filled. I haven't worked with you, but I'm familiar with your contributions. I'd trust you to commit to pixman. But I don't think I could really educate anyone except in the MMX and SSE2 code. The same goes for everyone, I believe. What could we do to let Pixman go forward? I suppose a project in a similar state would just get forked by some new people, who will then drive it with their own goals. Except here that doesn't work, because the fork would soon fall into the same state as the original project, except the world would just be more fragmented. Couldn't we as well just loosen up on the master branch and let stuff land whenever someone is active and someone else doesn't see anything bad in it? There are always the stable branches, too, for those who want to stick to old and well-tested code. Yes, the software quality will likely degrade somewhat, at least from the old maintainers' perspective. However, the alternative seems to be a completely stalled project. Which one is better? FWIW, distros (well, Raspbian at least) already maintain their own forks, most likely as a single-person
Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On 04/07/2015 12:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote: I don't know how Cairo does review, but I think it would be really nice if a Cairo developer reviewed Bill's patches (I think they were adding a new API to pixman?) if not for all the little technical details but that the API makes sense for its uses in Cairo. My patches are to move the current cairo FILTER_GOOD/BEST behavior into pixman. Pixman can do this better and faster, and it means that the X11 Cairo backend does not have to do an image fallback for transforms. The main difference between this patch and the Cairo code is that Søren wanted to preserve his current api for generating filters, which requires selection of two filters which are then integrated (one of them scaled by the width). I am not in full agreement with this as all other systems I have ever seen treat the smaller filter as impulse, and except for box+box (which produces a trapezoid and most software produces that directly when box is requested), I have to use impulse for one of the filters always. In any case most of the series is to fix bugs and inefficiencies in the filter generation. There is then a patch to enable use of the filtering for GOOD/BEST settings, matching Cairo (with a few minor improvements). There is also patches to fix the demo programs so the GOOD/BEST filter can be tested and to fix the filter size for rotated images. In addition if this is pushed we need a test in Cairo to detect if pixman is new enough and then remove Cairo's local emulation. There has to be a test for the linked Pixman and perhaps a different one for the X server. ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:46:10 -0700 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bill Spitzak spit...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/30/2015 10:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote: Do you just need someone to push them? I'm not capable of reviewing these. Since Søren isn't really maintaining pixman anymore I'm not really sure how to proceed. Is this true? I don't see anyone but Pekka reviewing patches and there hasn't been a release in 15 months, so yeah. I think something needs to be done about this as all new work on X and Cairo is depending on pixman. I mean, sure. I have had an outstanding patch set for 8 months now. Søren responded to an earlier version and I tried to address it but have not heard anything since. This is very frustrating as I would like to work on this but I'm not going to do it if it is useless. As far as I know, Søren isn't working at Redhat any more, so I don't think you can expect him to continue maintaining pixman. Ok. Søren, Matt, Siarhei, how can we get the Pixman maintenance communitized? Maybe a la libdrm, because no-one has the resources to become a dedicated maintainer? Seems fine to me, though I don't really feel like a pixman maintainer. :) What does it take to get push and release authorization, in the political sense that Pixman quality would not degrade and the current/old maintainers would approve? What kind of review policies should be enforced? Søren told me back in December on IRC Feel free to do a release. I'm happy to have people commit to pixman who have a track record of contributions to other X.Org projects. What development guidelines should there be? Should it be strictly no new API/ABI nor features, only performance work and new platform support like the latest new ARM? I'm not aware of any backwards-incompatible changes to pixman, at least in a really long time. Keeping that policy in place seems like a good idea. New APIs do happen. I think that's probably fine. If there is one person contributing arch or cpu-specific optimizations in assembly that no-one is willing to review apart from the scope of code changes and style, should we trust that one person and just land his work if he shows the performance numbers are good? I might be a bit biased in my answer, since I have some patches to the MMX code in my tree that I don't expect anyone to review, but yeah I think we should mostly trust the author (obviously depends on the author's credibility). I mean, I'm a newbie here. I don't want to hijack this project and push it only to my own directions, also because I cannot become a dedicated maintainer, nor promise to review anyone else's stuff. But, there are patches I'd like to see landed. I could work on them with Ben, but if there is no-one upstream to tell us what goes and what doesn't, we are left to our own judgement. Would you trust my and Ben's judgement so that I could land Ben's patches and make Pixman releases? I don't think you're hijacking at all. I think this conversation needed to happen sooner or later, though I do wish Søren or Siarhei could spend a little time on it. You probably don't have a good understanding about how I work and what kind of a developer I am, nor have that kind of trust in me. That is fine. We need time to build that trust through discussion and patches. But it's hard to have a discussion if no-one can reply. I also understand that because I will not promise to be a maintainer, there is less incentive in educating me. It is quite likely that I hang around here for a while and then wander off when my needs are filled. I haven't worked with you, but I'm familiar with your contributions. I'd trust you to commit to pixman. But I don't think I could really educate anyone except in the MMX and SSE2 code. The same goes for everyone, I believe. What could we do to let Pixman go forward? I suppose a project in a similar state would just get forked by some new people, who will then drive it with their own goals. Except here that doesn't work, because the fork would soon fall into the same state as the original project, except the world would just be more fragmented. Couldn't we as well just loosen up on the master branch and let stuff land whenever someone is active and someone else doesn't see anything bad in it? There are always the stable branches, too, for those who want to stick to old and well-tested code. Yes, the software quality will likely degrade somewhat, at least from the old maintainers' perspective. However, the alternative seems to be a completely stalled project. Which one is better? FWIW, distros (well, Raspbian at least) already maintain their own forks, most likely as a single-person project. At upstream we could at least aim for a different person to review a change than the one who wrote it. For distribution
Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:46:10 -0700 Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bill Spitzak spit...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/30/2015 10:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote: Do you just need someone to push them? I'm not capable of reviewing these. Since Søren isn't really maintaining pixman anymore I'm not really sure how to proceed. Is this true? I don't see anyone but Pekka reviewing patches and there hasn't been a release in 15 months, so yeah. I think something needs to be done about this as all new work on X and Cairo is depending on pixman. I mean, sure. I have had an outstanding patch set for 8 months now. Søren responded to an earlier version and I tried to address it but have not heard anything since. This is very frustrating as I would like to work on this but I'm not going to do it if it is useless. As far as I know, Søren isn't working at Redhat any more, so I don't think you can expect him to continue maintaining pixman. Ok. Søren, Matt, Siarhei, how can we get the Pixman maintenance communitized? Maybe a la libdrm, because no-one has the resources to become a dedicated maintainer? What does it take to get push and release authorization, in the political sense that Pixman quality would not degrade and the current/old maintainers would approve? What kind of review policies should be enforced? What development guidelines should there be? Should it be strictly no new API/ABI nor features, only performance work and new platform support like the latest new ARM? If there is one person contributing arch or cpu-specific optimizations in assembly that no-one is willing to review apart from the scope of code changes and style, should we trust that one person and just land his work if he shows the performance numbers are good? I mean, I'm a newbie here. I don't want to hijack this project and push it only to my own directions, also because I cannot become a dedicated maintainer, nor promise to review anyone else's stuff. But, there are patches I'd like to see landed. I could work on them with Ben, but if there is no-one upstream to tell us what goes and what doesn't, we are left to our own judgement. Would you trust my and Ben's judgement so that I could land Ben's patches and make Pixman releases? You probably don't have a good understanding about how I work and what kind of a developer I am, nor have that kind of trust in me. That is fine. We need time to build that trust through discussion and patches. But it's hard to have a discussion if no-one can reply. I also understand that because I will not promise to be a maintainer, there is less incentive in educating me. It is quite likely that I hang around here for a while and then wander off when my needs are filled. The same goes for everyone, I believe. What could we do to let Pixman go forward? I suppose a project in a similar state would just get forked by some new people, who will then drive it with their own goals. Except here that doesn't work, because the fork would soon fall into the same state as the original project, except the world would just be more fragmented. Couldn't we as well just loosen up on the master branch and let stuff land whenever someone is active and someone else doesn't see anything bad in it? There are always the stable branches, too, for those who want to stick to old and well-tested code. Yes, the software quality will likely degrade somewhat, at least from the old maintainers' perspective. However, the alternative seems to be a completely stalled project. Which one is better? FWIW, distros (well, Raspbian at least) already maintain their own forks, most likely as a single-person project. At upstream we could at least aim for a different person to review a change than the one who wrote it. For distribution users, that should be a win, along with gathering development into one place. Am I asking for your approval to get push rights to Pixman upstream? Hmm, I suppose I am. At least that would make me personally responsible for the stuff I push, without having to piggyback on someone else who might then fear getting unjustified blame. I will certainly reserve the right to say: No, I won't push that, because I can't tell if it is good for Pixman or not. Thanks, pq ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
Re: [Pixman] Is Pixman being maintained at all?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bill Spitzak spit...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/30/2015 10:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote: Do you just need someone to push them? I'm not capable of reviewing these. Since Søren isn't really maintaining pixman anymore I'm not really sure how to proceed. ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman Is this true? I don't see anyone but Pekka reviewing patches and there hasn't been a release in 15 months, so yeah. I think something needs to be done about this as all new work on X and Cairo is depending on pixman. I mean, sure. I have had an outstanding patch set for 8 months now. Søren responded to an earlier version and I tried to address it but have not heard anything since. This is very frustrating as I would like to work on this but I'm not going to do it if it is useless. As far as I know, Søren isn't working at Redhat any more, so I don't think you can expect him to continue maintaining pixman. If nothing is going to change in pixman I think Cairo is going to have to fork it and make a local copy. This is going to remove the ability for Cairo to use X remote rendering (since X will still be using the old pixman), though it is unclear if any serious software is using this mode any more. Sounds ridiculous. Get a Cairo developer to review and commit your pixman changes? I don't know. ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
