@emersion In mitigation, I'd be very surprised if GNOME Shell wasn't >95% of all running Wayland compositors.

“Please do this work to support this thing that already works in all the common cases so that someone else doesn't have to do work to support the preëxisting standard” is not exactly a great pitch. (I'd expect a different response on a PR implementing idle-inhibit, FWIW).

It probably wouldn't hurt if the idle-inhibit extension moved to stable, either.

@RAOF Honestly I don't think it's >95%. A lot of people are running KWin, and Ubuntu doesn't have Wayland by default yet. Also see e.g. pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages (biased, I know, but still).

I'm not a fan of GNOME just closing the issue. They could've said "please send a MR", but they didn't. Instead, they said GNOME won't implement the protocol because… GNOME doesn't implement the protocol (?).

@RAOF And indeed, moving the idle-inhibit protocol in stable would be a good idea. wayland-protocols governance FTW!

@emersion Yeah, I totally agree that the request was not handled in the most welcoming manner.

I've also said that the bug wasn't opened in the best manner, but that doesn't make the maintainer's response better, just more understandable.

Reliable open-source desktop stats are rather difficult to come by 😉 .

@emersion Relatedly, I think the response “GNOME being GNOME” is also unhelpful (if understandable 😜​)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!