Been taking a look at this thing for a while. To be honest, I sense the current situation is about lack of communication. Every once in a while I see people complain about things not working on Wayland or how is KDE on Wayland doing right now (usually on Telegram or Discord). Trying to think as an end user just hopping into openSUSE distros and see things not working 'as usual' on Wayland may be confusing. There is no clear indication of what is going on behind the scenes, aside from the session names, but that doesn't really tell the whole story. The thing that bugs me is that, in the end, "this" patch gets in the way of troubleshooting. Users willing to do bug reporting on the topic of KDE/Wayland have higher chances of getting with a WONTFIX or something alike, simply because of downstream behavior. I don't think "the patch" affects mildly experienced users that much, but I sure am on the side of seeing this fade away eventually. Were this patch to be removed soon, I think it would be important to let packagers know ahead of time so they can check if their projects need patching or special tweaks. What about a two month deadline for this? I'm just trying to find the gray area, since I think we can all agree on this here: Plasma on Wayland is getting good, but is no there quite yet. For reference: my experience is the same as Attila and Knurpht. The moment I discovered that patch it was an "aha! moment", this explains why some flatpaks were not working on Wayland (they had fallback to X11 and Wayland access enabled) or why some GTK apps were looking blurry. My solution: I'll just fork plasma-workspace and disable the patch for me. I like Fabian's proposal: Quoting: ---begin quote--- tl;dr: It exists for an easier transition to using Plasma with Wayland, to work around certain shortcomings (middle-click paste, application interop) and bugs (KMail/WebEngine on Wayland. If those shortcomings are no longer there or no longer relevant to the target group (recent/current users of the X11 sessions), then the deviation from upstream defaults served their purpose and can be retired. Input from users is needed for that, to ensure that it doesn't introduce any regressions which force them away from the Wayland sessions again. ---end quote--- This proposal also fulfills my idea of having better communication about the issue. On the topic of asking about feedback, what would the process of testing look like? Just add a repo, zypper dup --allow-vendor-change and good to go? I mean, if users are expected to run some kind of tests or just use the session as they would normally. Saludos.