On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 15:59, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 14:28, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > > > Log message: > > > Put drm version back from 3.0 to 2.2; XFree86 4.1 is the baseline for > > > versioning information. > > > > > > Modified files: > > > xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r128/: > > > r128_xmesa.c > > > xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/: > > > r128_dri.c > > > xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel/: > > > r128_drv.c > > > > > > Revision Changes Path > > > 1.25 +3 -3 xc/xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/r128/r128_xmesa.c > > > 1.27 +3 -3 >xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/r128_dri.c > > > 1.42 +2 -2 >xc/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel/r128_drv.c > > > > But you're aware that the major should have been bumped for 4.1 already? > > It doesn't work with 4.0.x DRM and vice versa. > > Yes. That's life. What's important is compatibility of future versions with > 4.1. 4.0 is a lost cause. Bumping the version number now doesn't make up for > not doing it earlier, and even worse, we've promised not to bump the version > numbers from the 4.1 base line without *extremely* good reason.
Keith, David, I hadn't looked at it that way, but it's of course very reasonable. Thanks for explaining. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
