On 07.09.2012 12:30, Jose Fonseca wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> >> wrote: >>> Matt, >>> >>> I see you went ahead and just disabled it. Please remove it all >>> together. >>> >>> Touching code that is not built nor tested ends just silently >>> introduces bugs, so keeping this around won't help bring it back >>> one day in any way. >>> >>> Jose >> >> I talked with both Marek and Christoph, and they both said they'd >> prefer to simply disable the build. I don't feel strongly, but if >> someone is to revive it it'd be nice if we didn't make the git >> history >> harder to follow. > > I suppose they have their arguments, and I hope they include making this > build again shortly. What I don't understand is why these talks didn't > happen within this email thread. I'd expect at least a heads up email before > committing this... >
Actually I didn't express any preference. I can't say when or even if I'll work on d3d1x again, and I don't care about making it build in the meantime, since it isn't useful for anyone without further improvements. (Like working translation of SM4 to TGSI; my passing SM4 to the driver directly works much better right now, but is too "evil" to push upstream). >> Applying your reasoning (which I tend to agree with) to some other >> parts of Gallium makes for interesting conversation. The VAAPI state >> tracker and targets aren't built. Should we also nuke them? How about >> something like the xorg-i915 target (which installs a >> 'modesetting_drv.so')? > > I don't know enough about this code or the ongoing autotool-ification process > to tell whether this is a short term or long term condition. > > But yes, In general I see no point in carrying around stuff that doesn't > minimally work or can't even be built. If something is unusable/unmaintained > over one Mesa release cycle, then it should be chopped off. Every dead code > we remove means that cleanups and refactorings of the good code becomes > easier. And if it is broken, then there's no loss to the end user either. > > This is not the first or last time we'd remove code BTW. There are many > precedents. > > Jose > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
