On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 04:53:29PM +0000, Rowley, Timothy O wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2016, at 12:52 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > > > > That's an awkward situation we've not run into before. > > > > If the code is going to live in the upstream Mesa git repository, then > > it seems like the best long term plan is to reverse the workflow: make > > upstream Mesa the canonical repository, do development upstream, and > > pull changes from upstream into any internal repositories. > > > > Obviously, that's a huge process change - presumably you have a bunch > > of people working in some Intel perforce system - but working in the > > public is very beneficial. It's also the mark of a true open source > > project, rather than simply "available source”. > > While that situation would be nice, the swr rasterizer is a subset of an > internal project, and what is upstreamed publicly is not just a straight copy > of our repository. Moving to having the rasterizer’s “home” to Mesa involves > some large technical and workflow challenges. >
How much testing do you do on the version of swr that's in Mesa? -Tom _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev