On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable > before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged > until the interface was stable.
What kind of excuse is that? It's "we did bad things, but if we didn't do those bad things, we'd have done _other_ bad things"? Two wrong choices don't make a right. Nobody has even answered me whether this is _forwards_compatible. It clearly isn't backwards-compatible. IOW, is there _any_ way to move back-and-forth over that commit, even if I can find a new libdrm? IOW, we know we have a problem here. But what's the solution? I know I can revert it (I tried, I'm running that kernel now, nouveau works). That's not a good solution, I know. But can you offer me a _better_ one? One that doesn't involve "upgrade all the way to rawhide, and lose the ability to bisect anything, or run plain 2.6.33". So yes, I'm complaining. But I at least have mentioned one solution. You, in contast, are just making excuses with no solutions. Linus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel