On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 18:36, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 02:45, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Would this also be a good time to move the DRM modules into the Mesa tree?
>
> Has it even been decided that's a good idea? I'm not sure it is; their
> being separate might help prevent compatibil
--- Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't think Mesa makes any more sense as a home than DRI, since both are
> consumers (and the freedesktop.org X Server is now a consumer, too). If
There aren't three consumers: Mesa, xserver and DRI. There is only one, the dri
drivers in the Mesa tree.
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 21:06, Jon Smirl wrote:
> --- Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > don't think Mesa makes any more sense as a home than DRI, since both are
> > consumers (and the freedesktop.org X Server is now a consumer, too). If
>
> There aren't three consumers: Mesa, xserver and D
The rework of of the dri drivers that I am doing is also dependent on parallel
changes being made in the DRM drivers. I'd like to have them in the same cvs
system so that I can keep things in sync. What the point of keeping them in the
DRI tree if the only client of them now lives in the Mesa tree?
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 02:45, Jon Smirl wrote:
Would this also be a good time to move the DRM modules into the Mesa tree?
Has it even been decided that's a good idea? I'm not sure it is; their
being separate might help prevent compatibility problems with their
interface, or a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 09:35:38AM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 02:45, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> >>Would this also be a good time to move the DRM modules into the Mesa tree?
> >
> >
> >Has it even been decided that's a good idea? I'm not sure it is; thei
Jon Smirl wrote:
The rework of of the dri drivers that I am doing is also dependent on parallel
changes being made in the DRM drivers. I'd like to have them in the same cvs
system so that I can keep things in sync. What the point of keeping them in the
DRI tree if the only client of them now lives
On Llu, 2003-12-29 at 09:45, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> Doing it this way, we'd need to have regular releases of the DRM kernel
> modules and tag them with CVS keywords. But I'm all for this too.
This makes sense for development. Also in Linus proposed model the
kernel framebuffer drivers are themsel
