Why libinput doesn't have a lot of config options

Most days, at least one of the bugs I deal with requests something along the lines of "just add $FOO as a config option". In this post, I'll explain why this is usually a bad solution. First, read http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ and keep those arguments in mind. Generally, there are two groups of configuration options - hardware options and user options. Hardware options are those that deal with specific quirks needed on some hardware, but not on other hardware. User options are those that deal with user preferences such as tapping or two-finger vs. edge scrolling.

In the old synaptics driver, we added options whenever something new came up and we tried to make those options generic. This was a big mistake. The driver now has over 70 configuration options resulting in a test matrix with a googolplex of combinations. In other words, it's completely untestable. To make a device work users often have to find the right combination of options from somewhere, write out a root-owned config file and then hope this works. Why do we still think this is acceptable? Even worse: some options are very specific to hardware but still spread in user forum examples like an STD during spring break.

In libinput, we're having none of that. When hardware doesn't work we expect a user to file a bug, we get it fixed upstream for the specific model and thus automatically fix it for all users of that device. We're leaning heavily on udev's hwdb which we have extended to correct devices when the firmware announces wrong information. This has the advantage that there is only one authoritative source of quirks a device needs to work. And we can update this as time goes by without having to worry about stale configuration options. One good example here is the custom acceleration profile that Lenovo X230 touchpads have in libinput. All in all, there is little pushback for the lack of hardware-specific configuration options and most users are fine with it once they accept the initial waiting period to get the patch into their distribution.

User-specific options are more contentious. In our opinion, some features should be configurable and others should not. Where to draw that line is of course quite undefined. For example, tapping on or off was one of the first configuration options available and that was never a cause for arguments either way (except whether the default should be on or off). Other options are more contentious. Clickpad software buttons are always on the bottom edge and their size is hardcoded (synaptics allowed almost free positioning of those buttons). Other features such as changing a two-finger tap to some other button event is not supported at all in libinput. This effectively comes down to cost. You see, whenever you write "it's just 5 lines of code to make this an option", what I think is "once the patch is reviewed and applied, I'll spend two days to write test cases and documentation. I'll need to handle any bug reports related to this, and I'm expected to make sure this option works indefinitely. Any addition of another feature may conflict with this option, so I need to make sure the right combination is possible and test cases are written." So your work ends after writing a 5 line patch, my work as maintainer merely starts. And unless it pays off long-term, the effort is not worth it. Some features make that cut, others don't if they are too much of a niche feature.

All this is of course nothing new and every software project needs to make these decisions. Input isn't even a special case here, it pales in comparison with e.g. the decisions UI designers need to make. However, in FOSS we have a tendency to think that because something is possible, it should be done. Legally, you have freedom to do almost anything with the software, so you can maintain a local fork of libinput with that extra feature applied. If that isn't acceptable, why would it be acceptable to merge the patch and expect others to shoulder the costs?