Andy Isaacson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:29:05PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Stablizing the tree and getting something shipping that people can
distribute is the first priority. I'm sure lots of people would like to
see Mesa/DRI development more closely tied to X driver development so
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 23:40, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Andy Isaacson wrote:
I feel a little bit like a shill here, but I figure I should throw out
my two cents. First, a disclaimer: I work for BitMover but I do not set
company policy; if you need to get The Official Word on things
[responding from my personal account to avoid the subscriber-only filter]
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:40:28PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Andy Isaacson wrote:
[perhaps DRI / fd.o should consider BitKeeper]
For DRI at least, it's been discussed rejected.
My apologies for bringing up a
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
On Llu, 2004-03-01 at 16:28, Michel Dnzer wrote:
For my part, I'd certainly prefer staying clear of the silly new
license. In the long run, I'd vote for moving the DRI X server code to a
freedesktop.org X server tree and the libGL code
Around 19 o'clock on Mar 8, Keith Whitwell wrote:
I don't have any in-principle objections to this, though I'd like to get
more of a feel for the new X.org before committing to anything.
That seems sensible. I don't think there's any particular urgency here,
nothing related to DRI will
