On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:16:49PM +0200, Nils Chr. Brause wrote: > Hi, > > Reviewed-by: Nils Christopher Brause <nilschrbra...@googlemail.com> > > I ran distcheck and it worked. :)
a bit late, but I would like to register my disagreement with this patch :) Having the DTD is a much simpler and less bug-prone description of what the protocol should look like. Having the scanner define the protocol means the protocol is whatever the current version of the scanner supports, which is not a good contract. I'd argue for reverting this and fixing any mismatch if there is one. And using the DTD to validate before the scanner even runs. Cheers, Peter > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote: > > Yeah, that was a pretty embarrassing mistake by me, for such a simple > > patch. Thanks to Bryce for catching it. > > > > On 8 October 2015 at 15:05, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:35:34 +0100 > >> Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote: > >> > >>> The wayland scanner defines the protocol. The DTD specification is not > >>> used. > >>> --- > >>> Makefile.am | 4 ++-- > >>> protocol/wayland.dtd | 29 ----------------------------- > >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > >>> delete mode 100644 protocol/wayland.dtd > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.co.uk> > >> > >> No, I didn't run distcheck this time either. ;-) > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
