On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote: > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports > > > collobration. > > > > [snip] > > > > > The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now. > > > > [snip] > > > > > Again, your missing the point of using a development structure which > > > supports collobration. > > > > [snip] > > > > > It hasn't moved "... well beyond what was in drm git." If you believe > > > otherwise, your only fooling yourself. > > > > [snip] > > > > > See above comments. > > > > Yes, you have made it abundantly clear that you are in favor of having a > > centralized repository for all DRM development. The fact is, that's not > > happening now and is not going to happen. That used to be the case, but > > the linux DRM developers did not see an advantage to that for themselves, > > and though rnoland was unhappy with the decision (because it made his job > > harder), the linux DRM developers did what they felt was best. > > You assuming what what good for Linux for a developer, is also good for a > BSD developer. As for making rnoland's job harder, it was his choice.
Nice try, but I am making no such assumptions. It was not rnoland's choice to stop having the linux DRM developers stop using a centralized repository for all DRM code. He was quite clearly opposed to it and did not consider it a good choice. > > Since then, rnoland has made significant progress porting the linux > > specific changes over to FreeBSD. If you don't believe the changes he's > > made in the FreeBSD source tree go 'well beyond' what had been in > > mesa/drm on freedesktop git then you are fooling yourself. Frankly, if I > > were Robert, I would be offended by that statement you made. > > I've diffed the code. Suggest that you do the same and see if you can > still make the same statements. r6xx/r7xx DRM code, alone, pushes FreeBSD DRM "well beyond" what was in mesa/drm on freedesktop. > > As has been said time and again, the kernel specific code in mesa/drm > > serves no purpose other than providing a historical log of the DRM > > development from that time, so there was no harm in pulling it. The > > FreeBSD DRM code follows the same development model as the rest of > > FreeBSD, and I have a hard time believing that such a model doesn't > > support collaboration. That is certainly an accusation I've never once > > heard made against the FreeBSD project in recent years till just now. > > If one stashes his/her development code where few if any can get at it, I > don't consider that collaboration. Many developers have private source repos for their code and only make such code available when it's actually usable for testing or further development by others. > > Now, the changes are made, and what's done is done. Can we please just > > move on? > > I was going to move along, but I felt your email had so many errors, I > couldn't let it got by. Nice try baiting me. I've said my two cents worth, and I'm done with this discussion. Adam ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
