On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 01:33:41PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 04:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 07:54, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:18:49AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 04:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 07:54, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:18:49AM +0200, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before t
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 07:54, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:18:49AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > >
> > > I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before the license change
> >
> > Are you sure? AFAIK David applied t
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:18:49AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before the license change
>
> Are you sure? AFAIK David applied the new license (or at least a
> similarly controversial one) to
> AFAIK X.org also imported 4.3.99.902 for their version (at least the release
> notes indicates that 4.3.99.902 was merged unconditionally,
> http://freedesktop.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xc/RELNOTES?root=xorg), so if
> indeed some files would be covered under the new license even for this version
>
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before the license
change
Are you sure? AFAIK David applied the new license (or at least a
similarly controversial one) to some files before it was publicly
announced.
This page
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 00:00, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before the license change
Are you sure? AFAIK David applied the new license (or at least a
similarly controversial one) to some files before it was publicly
announced.
> and closer to what X.Org w
Alan Hourihane wrote:
I could merge in XFree86 4.3.99.902 which is before the license change
and closer to what X.Org went with for now.
That will bring us closer to both trees. And then we can delay a
decision until things have settled on both sides of the pond, and see
where the land lies.
What
I was under the impresion that several bugs where found in 4.3.99.902 that
need patching. This work has allready been done twice I shuder to think
any one would bother a third.
--- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:13:53AM -0700, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > Speaki
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:13:53AM -0700, Alex Deucher wrote:
> Speaking of merging, what are everyone's thoughts on merging the DDX
> trees (drivers at least, I don't know about the rest, especially with
> the licensing)? I was thinking mostly DRI<->xfree86 but I suppose we
> could look at gatos
--- Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > Speaking of merging, what are everyone's thoughts on merging the
> DDX
> > trees (drivers at least, I don't know about the rest, especially
> with
> > the licensing)? I was thinking mostly DRI<->xf
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> Speaking of merging, what are everyone's thoughts on merging the DDX
> trees (drivers at least, I don't know about the rest, especially with
> the licensing)? I was thinking mostly DRI<->xfree86 but I suppose we
> could look at gatos too. Specifi
Speaking of merging, what are everyone's thoughts on merging the DDX
trees (drivers at least, I don't know about the rest, especially with
the licensing)? I was thinking mostly DRI<->xfree86 but I suppose we
could look at gatos too. Specifically the radeon driver has some new
fixes in the xfree86
13 matches
Mail list logo
