Re: Wayland backend update

[Ivan Vučica]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Ladislav Michl <ladis@linux-mips.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:39:57PM +0000, Ivan Vučica wrote:
> > ...and now actually attaching the patches before the Debian pastes expire.
>
> Hmm, sending all the patches inline as a patch serie with nice cover letter
> was a matter of single patman invocation and it was not done on the purpose.
> Debian paste have 90 days expiration and that should be enough for patches
> to land in some git repo. I'll create github fork myself in the worst case :)

I think archiving the patches on the mailing list makes sense. For
example, I did not get around to reviewing this patch this weekend.

I recall trying to dig Sergio's patches last time I wanted to try them
out being troublesome in some way.

A GitHub fork will mildly help merging this (if you happen to be a
GitHub user), but I would personally be fine with patches, so whatever
you prefer. GitHub PR would help multiple people take a look at the
patch, too; I'd have created one anyway.

> > uto, 7. sij 2020. u 21:38 Ivan Vučica <ivan@vucica.net> napisao je:
> >
> > > FYI this ended up in spam for me. Not sure why.
> > >
> > > This is super exciting! Looking forward to taking some time to merge this.
> > >
> > > I've attached the patches for archival purposes, and will take a look at
> > > updating the forked tree. We will definitely want the copyright assignment
> > > to FSF; Sergio mentioned he did the assignment in an email dated 
> > > 2016-12-04.
>
> I started copyright assignment process and will notify you once done. 
> Meanwhile
> we can probably prepare merge, but I'm unsure how to proceed. My suggestion
> is to squash patches into single one (once polished as it still have issues)
> as I see no point to merge nonfunctional change and fix it with incremental
> patches. I hope it is sane way as Sergio is the principal author and the rest
> is just simple polishment.

I would prefer to merge multiple changes in this instance, to better
preserve historical authorship information.

>
> Sergio could comment on this:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnustep-dev/2018-02/msg00006.html
> (Hmm, now I realize this discussion should probably happen on gnustep-dev
> list)

I somehow missed that reply from Richard. :-(