Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by badsectoracula 176 days ago
The -IMO- important part of that quote is "NOT HAVE THE TIME OR CAPACITY TO KEEP UP WITH wlroots CHANGES".

X11 is backwards compatible, you do not have to "keep up" with its changes.

wlroots seemingly isn't. This is a significant issue when it comes to relying on most 3rd party libraries.
2 comments
gf000 175 days ago
> X11 is backwards compatible, you do not have to "keep up" with its changes.

That's certainly one way to say "no longer developed".

link
account42 162 days ago
When things work further development is not always a positive.
link
int_19h 175 days ago
That was also true back when it was actively developed though. X apps compiled a long time ago still run fine today.
link
badsectoracula 172 days ago
Xorg is still being under development, there is another fork in development too (XLibre) and you're in the comment thread for a project about a brand new X server written from scratch.

Usually things which are "no longer developed" do not have (at least) three implementations in development.

link
michaelmrose 171 days ago
Mature projects often don't change much or quickly even when actively maintained or improved.
link
mackeye 176 days ago
(i worked a _little bit_ on dwl) each wlroots upgrade is a pretty small diff on the dwl source. the annoying part is, as dwl is configured with patches, every patch author has to update their patch to the new 0.x, as dwl is quite minimal, and thus has no stable api. that being said, obviously, dwm doesn't have this problem :)

also, for dwl, the issue is that the initial author (not the guy that wrote that notice) is sorta mia, and he has control of the repo on codeberg, so we'd probably need to fork to be safe, and he may not want to take on project lead. (he checks every patch for merge conflicts with one another and upgrade breakages, god bless him lol)

link