Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-12 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 23:36 +0200, Simone Caronni wrote: Hello, On 11 June 2014 19:11, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Hi, why not begin by a xserver rebase in copr ? Personally, because I don't feel like doing the work twice. But if

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-12 Thread Sérgio Basto
Hi, On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:40 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-12 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Qui, 2014-06-12 at 11:06 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: how is this jujuxiii ? I mean who is this jujuxiii ? -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread Adam Jackson
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack. I'm not intrinsically _opposed_ to rebasing X in F20. But it's not something we've done in any previous Fedora, and there

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread Adam Jackson
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack.

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread drago01
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack. To add some context the feature that I am asking for

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:40 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote: Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread David Airlie
To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 + present ... with mesa 10.2 it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in mutter that some user are experiencing without using workarounds like forcing the compositor to always redraw the whole

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread David Airlie
To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 + present ... with mesa 10.2 it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in mutter that some user are experiencing without using workarounds like forcing the compositor to always redraw the

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread drago01
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:18 PM, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote: To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 + present ... with mesa 10.2 it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in mutter that some user are experiencing without

Re: rfc: xserver rebase in F20 (was Re: Slipping F21)

2014-06-11 Thread Simone Caronni
Hello, On 11 June 2014 19:11, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Hi, why not begin by a xserver rebase in copr ? Personally, because I don't feel like doing the work twice. But if someone else wants to, sure, go for it. I could do it, also think about do it for eclipse-swt , but