On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> 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... > > I don't know why they didn't respond via email. > > It's not like we can't still remove d3d1x... > >>> 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. > > VAAPI is disabled in the build system because it doesn't work. > >> 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. > > I know. I'm asking about things that are currently disabled (VAAPI > stuff) or are of questionable use (xorg-i915).
Make sure you check with Jakob first, but I'm fine with removing xorg-i915. I don't think it has worked properly in a while. Stéphane _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
