On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Alan Hourihane wrote: >> > > The ability to track changes to that with reasons so that we can keep a >> > > stable DRM and also the 'DRM of the day' visible to the kernel people - >> > > perhaps the devel kernel tree having an option for "Development DRM >> > > (XFree86 4.4) (Y/M/N)". >> > >> > For 'stable DRM' you need to stick with XFree86 4.2.0 and the DRM modules >> > that ship with 4.2.0. For 'DRM of the day' use the DRI trunk. >> >> Do the 4.2.0 DRM modules from XFree 4.2.0 have all the bug fixes in them >> for things pci_alloc_consistent ? > >No, nor does 4.2.1.
Should anyone be using XFree86 CVS stable branch DRM nor trunk DRM then? I presume if bugfixes are not going into XFree86 CVS stable branches, that the DRM in there is snapshoted and then throwaway. Where should we be getting DRM from for our kernel, and where should we be sending bug fixes for DRM to? I'd like to have one single location, be it kernel.org, DRI-CVS, or XFree86.org to both get DRM from, and send in bugfixes for. I have been getting it from XFree86 CVS in the past, generally right after a merge, or when I spot drm changes in cvs-commits. Right now however, for both Red Hat kernels, and kernel.org kernels there is up to 2 levels of indirection between the kernel.org kernel updates and the DRM upstream source, and it seems also that many bugfixes also go through 2 or more levels of indirection. Where should all DRM bug fixes be sent? Right now if I've got a DRM bugfix hypothetically, I've got to send it to Arjan for inclusion in our kernel, then Alan or Marcelo for inclusion in the kernel.org kernel, and should probably have it sent to linux-kernel so other vendors are aware of it also, then dri-devel to make DRI developers aware of it for inclusion into DRI CVS too, as I understand nobody follows linux-kernel, and also to XFree86's patch queue. It's impossible to track all of that, and to track wether or not a given patch has actually been accepted in all of those locations and is applied or not. It's possible that one group of people may not apply the patch until it is accepted by group B or C, and that the submitter may be expected to monitor group B to see if they accept and apply it, and then again notify group A, C and D that the patch is applied, please apply it to your set too. As the number of patches goes up, and the number of releases of the kernel, XFree86, our distro, etc. it is impossible to keep track of it all. What I would like to see, is the DRI project, the XFree86 project, the Linux kernel folk all agree to one single unmistakeable official location for acquiring the current official "stable" kernel DRM source, and one single official location for submitting bug fixes, and then either: 1) That one location is responsible for pushing the fix out to whatever other places they feel are necessary or warranted. or 2) The various projects all pull the fixes in themselves from the one single central 'official' location, and if sent a fix from someone randomly, they automatically forward it on to the official location and not just apply it locally to their tree. That could be DRI-CVS, XFree86 CVS, or kernel.org. Also, it'd be prefered if that one "official" location would release versioned tarballs of the official DRM release, which would then be easier for people to manage what changed between different versions than tracking a given CVS head which may possibly become unstable at some times, etc. Right now, as it stands, I often get bug reports of DRI lockups and problems in our bugzilla, which upon deeper investigation turns out to be someone using a kernel.org kernel instead of our supplied kernel, and the DRM isn't new enough, or contains bugs that our kernel does not, and that DRI-CVS or XFree86 might not. We need... One DRM to rule them all, One developer to find them, One DRM to bring them all, And in the darkness find them. <dodges tomatoes> Yes, that was a lame attempt at humor. Seriously though, having 50 frayed trees of the same source code benefits nobody really, especially if various people consider different trees as authoritative/stable/official/whatever. As long as XFree86 / DRI Project / kernel.org each have their own DRM code, people will pull DRM from one of the three locations, and people will send bug reports, fixes, etc. to 3 locations. If each of those locations refuse to send patches on to the other locations, and expect the submitter to do it, the whole thing breaks down. What solutions do people think would be appropriate? -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
