On Tue Mar 14 05:55:36 2023 +0000, Zebediah Figura wrote:
Patches 1 and 2 will hopefully not be controversial. I still don't
know what others are going to think of patch 3. If it is not considered acceptable for mainline Wine, please submit it to [Wine Staging](https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine-staging) instead; one of the goals of the Staging fork is to make things work in ways that would not be considered acceptable in mainline Wine. That is not a goal of the wine-staging project, and it is not our intent to be a fork. We accept patches that are fundamentally in the right direction for upstream, even if they're not ready *yet*, but we don't want anything that is fundamentally wrong. We don't intend to maintain anything forever. If this is not deemed acceptable for upstream I don't think we want it in wine-staging either.
I apologize, I meant no offense. I remember that Wine Staging was originally described as a "fork" and that that was a "good thing", but I can't find the email, or maybe I am remembering an in-person conversation at WineConf 2015. I guess whether Staging is a "fork" depends on your definition of "fork".
I do remember conversations at WineConf where people said that Wine Staging is more committed to making things work for the sake of end users than mainline Wine is. I also remember nv*.dll being mentioned, and I got the impression that nothing like those patches in Staging would ever be considered acceptable in mainline. I may have misunderstood; please correct me if I am wrong.
@danielzgtg In the end the decision on whether to include the change to SLOpen in mainline Wine or in Wine Staging is not up to me, so take my advice with a grain of salt.