On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
The issue isn't that Canonical engineers aren't willing to work with other
people on integrating Mir, it's that because Mir is Ubuntu unique, has no
stable API/ABI, conflicts with other priorities, etc., integrating Mir is
simply not an interesting prospect for upstreams.
Mir is only going to be unique if upstreams and flavors refuse to consider it as an option.
From what I am reading here Thomas has been very open to discussing with upstreams (both KDE and GNOME, and I am sure others are welcome too) how to build Mir support. We have also worked hard to be very open and transparent with Mir - regular status updates, discussion in #ubuntu-mir and the mailing list, and plentiful documentation for participating in the project. I consider that we are as open a project as Wayland and while you might use the "broad distro support" argument, Wayland hasn't shipped on a distro other than Rebecca Black Linux as far as I am aware. :-)
I fully understand if you don't want to work on this problem, and I also fully understand if the KWin maintainer is uninterested in solving this problem and would prefer to focus on Wayland, but we are doing our best to be as open and collaborative as possible here, given the original points raised in Jonathan's email.
I see this as a trade-off.
Jonathan raised a valid point about KDE's needs and made it clear that the Kubuntu team would prefer not to have to maintain Wayland as a foundational piece in order to deliver Kubuntu. Obviously this work can be performed by the Kubuntu team (or anyone else) if they wish to do so; the archive welcomes components that don't serve Canonical's needs.
Canonical will of course be maintaining Mir as a core piece of infrastructure in the archive, and arguably encouraging Mir support in upstream KDE will help to alleviate this issue, but given that the Mir team are very open to supporting this outcome but both yourself and Jonathan are resistant to this, I am not sure what other options there are. What I am certain of is that Unity switching to Wayland is not an option, and Canonical is unlikely to invest in maintaining Wayland in the archive if it doesn't serve our needs in Ubuntu.
Jonathan raised a valid point about KDE's needs and made it clear that the Kubuntu team would prefer not to have to maintain Wayland as a foundational piece in order to deliver Kubuntu. Obviously this work can be performed by the Kubuntu team (or anyone else) if they wish to do so; the archive welcomes components that don't serve Canonical's needs.
Canonical will of course be maintaining Mir as a core piece of infrastructure in the archive, and arguably encouraging Mir support in upstream KDE will help to alleviate this issue, but given that the Mir team are very open to supporting this outcome but both yourself and Jonathan are resistant to this, I am not sure what other options there are. What I am certain of is that Unity switching to Wayland is not an option, and Canonical is unlikely to invest in maintaining Wayland in the archive if it doesn't serve our needs in Ubuntu.
Jono
--
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon
