Merge lp:~mir-team/mir/pluck-low-hanging-event-fruit into lp:mir
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Approved by: | Robert Carr on 2015-05-06 |
| Approved revision: | 2542 |
| Merged at revision: | 2545 |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~mir-team/mir/pluck-low-hanging-event-fruit |
| Merge into: | lp:mir |
| Diff against target: |
677 lines (+45/-167) 10 files modified
src/client/events/event_builders.cpp (+4/-4) src/client/input/android/android_input_lexicon.cpp (+0/-12) src/include/common/mir/events/event_private.h (+2/-38) src/server/graphics/nested/display_buffer.cpp (+0/-2) src/server/input/android/android_input_dispatcher.cpp (+6/-7) src/server/input/android/input_sender.cpp (+6/-7) src/server/input/android/input_translator.cpp (+0/-19) tests/unit-tests/input/android/test_android_input_dispatcher.cpp (+6/-19) tests/unit-tests/input/android/test_android_input_lexicon.cpp (+0/-22) tests/unit-tests/input/android/test_input_translator.cpp (+21/-37) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mir-team/mir/pluck-low-hanging-event-fruit |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alan Griffiths | 2015-05-04 | Approve on 2015-05-06 | |
| Alexandros Frantzis (community) | Approve on 2015-05-06 | ||
| PS Jenkins bot | continuous-integration | Approve on 2015-05-05 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Commit Message
Removed unused event MirKey and MirMotion event members. Next up: Enum unification.
This branch is part of the event cleaning pipeline:
Pluck-low-
Unify-event-
Unify-keyboard-
Remaining-
unify-pointer-
https:/
Description of the Change
Removed unused event MirKey and MirMotion event members. Next up: Enum unification.
- 2542. By Robert Carr on 2015-05-05
-
Merge trunk
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : | # |
PASSED: Continuous integration, rev:2542
http://
Executed test runs:
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://
| Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : | # |
Are we breaking ABI here? AFAICS we're changing structs in published headers.
| Robert Carr (robertcarr) wrote : | # |
event_private has moved to a private location unless you mean another header I have missed
| Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : | # |
> event_private has moved to a private location unless you mean another header I
> have missed
Somehow I missed that
| Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : | # |
> > event_private has moved to a private location unless you mean another header
> I
> > have missed
>
> Somehow I missed that
Although, shouldn't code compiled when the structs were public still be supported until we break ABI?
| Robert Carr (robertcarr) wrote : | # |
>> Although, shouldn't code compiled when the structs were public still be supported until we >> break ABI?
It's already been deprecated for one release and there are no downstream users as of release time (though I should double check GTK)...so I feel like this is a fair strategy.
Technically though I guess it could be an ABI break....
| Alexandros Frantzis (afrantzis) wrote : | # |
Looks good code-wise.
If this is technically an ABI break, then I propose we bump the ABI now to be on the safe side. We are planning to further break client ABI in 0.14 anyway (remove deprecated functions etc).
| Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : | # |
*Needs Discussion*
There's nothing "technical" about it - it is an ABI break. We've been pretty determinedly avoiding a client ABI break in the last few releases.
We do need to be explicit that we want to break client ABI this next cycle (it has my support BTW)
Assuming we do, we /1/ ought to be loud about it and /2/ ensure downstreams build with with the 0.13 API (preferably without deprecated calls) BEFORE we start thinking about the 0.14 release.
As far as this MP goes I'm happy to let it land and do the client ABI related changes separately - once we've confirmed that is our intent.
| Alexandros Frantzis (afrantzis) wrote : | # |
I am OK with bumping the ABI in a separate MP.
| Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote : | # |
> As far as this MP goes I'm happy to let it land and do the client ABI related
> changes separately - once we've confirmed that is our intent.
Following team discussion that confirmed the intention to break ABI
| Chris Halse Rogers (raof) wrote : | # |
WOOO! ABI BREAK TIME!

PASSED: Continuous integration, rev:2541 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-ci/ 3697/ jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-android- vivid-i386- build/2292 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-clang- vivid-amd64- build/2291 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-mediumtests -vivid- touch/2240 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-vivid- amd64-ci/ 1694 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-vivid- amd64-ci/ 1694/artifact/ work/output/ *zip*/output. zip jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-mediumtests -builder- vivid-armhf/ 2240 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-mediumtests -builder- vivid-armhf/ 2240/artifact/ work/output/ *zip*/output. zip jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ mir-mediumtests -runner- mako/5143 s-jenkins. ubuntu- ci:8080/ job/touch- flash-device/ 20178
http://
Executed test runs:
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild: s-jenkins. ubuntu- ci:8080/ job/mir- ci/3697/ rebuild
http://