A Fresh Start for X.Org Server: New “Main” Branch Proposed to Revive Development in 2026

The X.Org Server, the long-standing open-source display server powering the X Window System on Unix-like operating systems, may be entering a new chapter of development after years of stagnation and confusion in its source code repository. On January 19, 2026, developer Alan Coopersmith of Oracle put forward a proposal to create a new “main” Git branch that would serve as the authoritative source for future development and clean away accumulated issues that have plagued the current master branch.

Why the Change Is Being Considered

For many years, the X.Org Server has struggled with irregular releases and a muddled Git history. The server’s master branch, which should ideally contain a clear and coherent sequence of commits, has been cluttered with a mix of experimental changes, conflicting patches, and code that was later reverted. This has made tracking meaningful progress difficult and has frustrated developers trying to build, maintain, and release newer versions of the software.

Coopersmith’s proposal aims to start fresh by creating a new branch called “main” from an earlier snapshot of the repository—around February 2024—before many problematic changes were introduced. From that point, developers would selectively “cherry-pick” only those commits that represent stable, agreed-upon improvements, excluding those that were later reversed or caused significant issues.

The idea is to reduce clutter and confusion in the commit history so that future releases can actually ship and the project can regain forward momentum. The hope is that both the X.Org Server and its related XWayland component can see new releases—possibly version 26.1—later in 2026 after years without substantial updates.

What Problems Are Being Addressed

The core issue isn’t merely cosmetic; the existing master branch contains nearly 1,400 commits with many later reverts, while the proposed “main” branch would contain a cleaner set of roughly 835 commits that developers generally agree are worthwhile. Coopersmith’s criteria for inclusion include:

• Removing commits that were later reverted or were themselves reverts of other changes;

• Excluding changes that introduced API/ABI breaks or heavy churn with minimal benefit;

• Filtering out commits that failed to include proper copyright and license notices;

• Leaving in only those changes that are broadly accepted as useful and stable.
  

By pruning the repository aggressively, the hope is to stabilize the codebase and make it easier for developers to contribute without fear of stepping into broken or controversial changes.

The Broader Context of X.Org’s Development Challenges

The proposal comes against a backdrop of ongoing debate within the open-source graphics and display ecosystem about the relevance and future of X.Org Server itself. In recent years, the Linux ecosystem has shifted toward Wayland, a newer display protocol designed to replace X11. Many distributions have already adopted Wayland by default for modern desktops, citing better security, performance, and simplicity.

This shift has led some observers to question whether X.Org development has become stagnant or even obsolete. Discussions on sites like Slashdot and The Register in earlier years highlighted concerns that X.Org had become “abandonware” due to lack of frequent releases and active maintenance. At points, developers from major companies like Red Hat and Intel openly noted the project’s slow pace.

Complicating matters further, a controversial fork called Xlibre was created by developer Enrico Weigelt in an effort to revitalize development and introduce new features. While this fork stirred activity and conversation in the community, many of the changes it introduced ended up being reverted from the main X.Org repository, contributing to the confusion Coopersmith now aims to resolve.

Reactions and Next Steps

As of now, the “main” branch proposal is just that—a proposal being discussed on the X.Org development mailing list. No formal decision has been made, and Coopersmith has invited input from other developers before proceeding. He acknowledges that while the new branch has already been built and tested to the extent of passing continuous integration (CI) checks, further feedback will determine whether this is truly the best path forward.

If accepted, this move could set the stage for more predictable releases and encourage broader contributions, helping X.Org remain relevant even in a landscape increasingly dominated by Wayland. It would also bring clarity to developers and maintainers about the foundation on which new features and fixes should be built.

Why This Matters

Despite the rise of newer display technologies, X.Org Server still plays a crucial role in many systems—particularly in enterprise environments and legacy applications that depend on X11 compatibility. A clear development path and reliable releases can help maintain its utility for these use cases, even as the broader ecosystem evolves.

By proposing a cleaner and more focused repository, the X.Org community has an opportunity to overcome years of fragmentation and disagreements, potentially breathing new life into an iconic component of Unix-like graphical systems. Whether this plan succeeds will depend on community consensus, technical reviews, and continued contributions from stakeholders invested in the future of open-source display servers.