On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 07:25, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:05 +0100, Keith Whitwell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike A. Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:06:26 -0400 > > >>From: Alex Deucher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>To: Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > >>X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: Re: i830 driver status.. > > >> > > >>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:22:42 +0100 (IST), Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>>Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go > > >>>towards the i915 one? > > >>> > > >>>just like to get a semi-official idea? if so we need to import the up to > > >>>date DDX into the DRI tree and start releasing the snapshots for the i915 > > >>>driver.. > > >> > > >>Sounds good to me. At this point perhaps we should just not worry > > >>about updating the DRI tree and just switch to using the XORG tree for > > >>DDX. it's a lot of hassle to have to maintain both trees and then > > >>moves changes back and forth. New dri DDX related work can happen on > > >>a branch maybe. Just a thought... > > > > > > > > > I think it is a great idea if the DRI CVS tree moves into X.org, > > > either on Xorg CVS head, or on a branch - either would be better > > > than having so many different repositories to track, and merging > > > would probably be much smoother also, and could possibly be done > > > more often as well. > > > > > > Please bring this up on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if it > > > hasn't already (haven't checked my xorg folder). The new release > > > is looming on the near horizon for late August or thereabouts, so > > > it would be nice if this change could occur before then. > > > > Yes, my hope is now that people will just do their X work on the X.org CVS > > repository (like regular X developers - the old DRI/X distinction was pretty > > artificial) and the DRI tree can be archived. > > before we archive it, we ought to bring the WIP (savage, mach64, > virge, etc.) drivers over to a banch in XORG.
I'm thinking maybe we don't want to use a branch. Here's the idea: We make the DevelDRIDrivers define in imake include all these new, insecure, not-guaranteeing-backwards-compatibility drivers, and they're only turned on when we add #define BuildDevelDRIDrivers YES. For the DDXs of those drivers, we add this to their Imakefile #if !BuildDevelDRIDrivers #undef BuildXF86DRI #endif Now, no more fighting with branches, merges both directions, etc. We get to keep saying "These drivers are insecure, we don't guarantee backwards compatibility," etc. because they're disabled. Our users are happy that they don't have to learn about checking out branches to get their drivers. And we can ensure that we continue covering compiling of both paths in trunk by using the tinderbox. -- Eric Anholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
