On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:32:34AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:02:09PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:51:02PM +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> >> conversation with Kamil Paral today:
> >> Wayland has not been proposed as a change for Fedora 25 and no one
> >> outside the workstation group knows it's still a plan unless they
> >> follow our mailing list closely.
> >> Fedora QA doesn't test Wayland, Wayland test cases are not part of
> >> matrices and so forth.
> >> Now for the rest of the Fedora Project we're going with X11 for F25
> >> Wayland is still just the experimental thingy. To make it default it
> >> needs to go through thorough testing by the QA team and it needs to be
> >> part of test matrices.
> > We really _do_ need to go through the proper process here. Please
> > remember, Fedora is a huge project with hundreds of active
> > contributors, and this isn't just mere bureaucracy. We require the
> > coordination in order to continue to produce the reoccuring miracle
> > that is a functioning Fedora release.
> > I'm excited as anyone for the new features and improvements Wayland
> > brings to the table, but let's do it right.
> If someone wants to file a FESCo ticket to get it approved as a late
> change, I think that's reasonable. But tomorrow is go/no-go and I
> think it's at least as risky to flip back to Xorg by default as it is
> to leave Wayland the default; and no doubt FESCo would take QA's
> opinion on the late change into account but this lateness I think is
> pretty minor compared to some of the late changes that have happened
> in the past.
> I think a case can be made that it was always intended to be the
> default for Fedora 25, it very nearly was the default for Fedora 24.
> It's something of an oversight there was no change filed for Fedora
> 25, and it just slipped through the crack. Unless testers are manually
> changing to Xorg, it is being tested since it's the enabled default,
> which is a requirement by the change process. It probably also is at
> or nearly at the 100% code complete point well before that deadline;
> and if it's not 100% then the WG can estimate how far away it is and
> how likely it'd be at 100% by that deadline.
> Top on my list of blocking behaviors for which I'm not aware of an
> appropriate release criterion is: by beta the switching between
> wayland and X needs to be bulletproof; in particular the ability to
> switch from Wayland to X must actually work and must stick through a
> reboot (persistence). As long as the user can reliably use X, I think
> the worst of Waylands maturation problems are surmountable. There is
> an in place fallback, it's not like pretty much all other system wide
> complex changes where there is no such user initiated fallback
I don't think that this is an accurate description of current
situation. If testers who install F25 get wayland by default, all
this tells us that it mostly works, but not that it's ready for
widespread use. There's still a long list of open issues until feature
parity with X11. Those things don't get reported as bugs, because they
are well known missing features, not really bugs, but they cannot be
ignored. I've been using gnome-wayland myself for the last year, and
I think it's great, but there's still too many shortcomings.
IMO, the only reasonable course of action at this point is to make
X11 the default for F25 and punt wayland on to F26.
Is "feature parity with X11" the intended measure of readiness here?
I thought there were specific X11 features that are intentionally not
going to be duplicated in Wayland, which would make that a false bar
to try to reach.
We do have this existing feature page:
I was asked to propose this as a late feature for an exception.
However, the page doesn't appear to be updated technically. Also,
this test criterion seems suspect:
"Use the desktop normally, and verify that there are no obvious
instabilities, or Wayland-specific bugs or performance problems"
"No Wayland-specific bugs" also doesn't appear to jibe with the desire
to get Wayland out as a default even if there are a few specific bugs
to solve. The page lists https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1277927
tracker, but I didn't think the objective is to fix/close all the bugs
on that tracker in order to move to Wayland.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
- - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com