On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 02:24:45PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > but both are _not_required_, only encouraged. We can then revisit this
> > somewhere during 3.10.0.
>
> s/during/after/ ?
We should have a good idea around code freeze time. But maybe we want to
wait until
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:08:27PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > Policy should be aligned to / described in
> > https://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/WhatWeRelease
>
> I wrote a blogpost about Wayland and partly Mir:
> http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/03/19/wayland/
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:08:27PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Policy should be aligned to / described in
> https://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/WhatWeRelease
I wrote a blogpost about Wayland and partly Mir:
http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/03/19/wayland/
I actually assumed Canonical want
On 03/15/2013 09:41 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:30:38PM +0100, Piñeiro wrote:
>> [2] https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/Gaps#Accessibility
> Then we need to get that done (preferably in a freedesktop.org way).
> There currently is 30.000 USD for accessibility, which is not a lo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:30:38PM +0100, Piñeiro wrote:
> [2] https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/Gaps#Accessibility
Then we need to get that done (preferably in a freedesktop.org way).
There currently is 30.000 USD for accessibility, which is not a lot of
you need to pay multiple someones. Still, thi
On 03/12/2013 01:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Hi, just to give you a heads-up: I want to propose that we should make
> GNOME work on Wayland.
Hi, sorry for the delay on the answer. Some stuff was already discussed,
so I will just add some brief comments.
>
> We (me, Owen, Jasper and some others
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
>
> KDE FYI: According to KDE's Eike Hein, KDE currently has "no plans to
> stop X from fully working, and the idea is to support Wayland just as
> well, i.e. there are also no plans to make it a default - this will be
> largely up to downstrea
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 15:27 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:57:21AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > The Intel team is fairly confident that they can keep X and Wayland
> > working in parallel in mutter, so we should be able to have a 3.10
> > gnome-shell release that lets
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:27:42PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> 3.16: xorg = alpha :P
Wayland only GNOME (not gtk+) = 4.0? :P
Just trolling.
--
Regards,
Olav
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:57:21AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > But you mean work only on Wayland, or on Wayland as well as xorg?
>
> That question has different answers, depending on what you mean.
>
> Support for X applications is not going away.
I know that Wayland supports X application
> But you mean work only on Wayland, or on Wayland as well as xorg?
That question has different answers, depending on what you mean.
Support for X applications is not going away.
The Intel team is fairly confident that they can keep X and Wayland
working in parallel in mutter, so we should be ab
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:16:27AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Let me know what you think
+1
But you mean work only on Wayland, or on Wayland as well as xorg?
--
Regards,
Olav
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rele
Hi, just to give you a heads-up: I want to propose that we should make
GNOME work on Wayland.
We (me, Owen, Jasper and some others) met with krh last week and
talked about this idea at some length. I've put the resulting
information on the wiki here: https://live.gnome.org/Wayland
So far, we've s
13 matches
Mail list logo
