On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:43:57PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > Ian Romanick wrote: > >Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:57:05AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > >> > >>>I'd really rather not put the 5.1 code into DRI at this point. With > >>>lots of > >>>changes going on, it's too much of an upkeep hassle to keep the DRI > >>>code up to > >>>date. > >>> > >>>Also, the current 5.1 code takes some illegal shortcuts with API > >>>dispatch for some new fragment program functions. It could be > >>>dangerous to put this into the DRI trunk now. > >> > >> > >> > >>O.k. I'll back 5.1 out and put the current 5.0.x release in. > > > > > >I noticed that a LOT of $Id:$ stuff crept in to extras/Mesa/src. Was > >that intentional? It sure is adding work to my merge. :( > > > >I used to love doing things like > > > >#ident "$Id:$" > > > >But now that I've worked with CVS branches, I'm convinced that it and > >$Header:$ are quite evil. > > I always strip out the $Id$ tags from the Mesa sources when bringing them > in to DRI. Alan just missed that. > > I suppose I should just remove them from the Mesa sources permanently.
I would definately vote for this Brian, they just get very painful. Alan. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
