On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:51:55 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:36 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > I believe that moving away from the current model makes it more
> > difficult
> > to "... spread the burden ...", hence my objections. If you want to
> > call
> > that ranting or compl
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:36 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> I believe that moving away from the current model makes it more
> difficult
> to "... spread the burden ...", hence my objections. If you want to
> call
> that ranting or complaining, so be it.
We no longer get to share the burden with the mu
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM, vehemens wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:36:51 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>> On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
>> > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>> > > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
>> > >
>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:03:51PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
> You missing the point as is rnoland. Just because the linux DRM developers
> stopped using a centralized repository, didn't mean FreeBSD shouldn't as the
> intial integration work would be still shared reducing the burden on any one
>
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:36:51 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Your missing the point of usin
On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
> > > collobration.
> >
> > [snip
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
> > collobration.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
[snip]
> Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
> collobration.
[snip]
> The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now.
[snip]
> Again, your missing the point of using a development structure
On Sunday 29 November 2009 10:39:34 Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> I enjoy playing the devils advocate occasionally, so take this with a
> grain of salt.
>
> My understanding is that there are roughly 3 bsd kernels that support
> drm userspace interface(free*, open* and netbsd?), each has 1 or 2
> maint
I enjoy playing the devils advocate occasionally, so take this with a
grain of salt.
My understanding is that there are roughly 3 bsd kernels that support
drm userspace interface(free*, open* and netbsd?), each has 1 or 2
maintainers. For better or worse the linux guys/girls have gone their
own wa
On Sunday 29 November 2009 07:07:41 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 20:40 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
>
On Sunday 29 November 2009 00:31:17 Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:40:55PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
> > > Because unpublished work doesn't exist That goes for the work that
> > > I've done that isn't yet publ
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 20:40 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > >
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:40:55PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
> > Because unpublished work doesn't exist That goes for the work that
> > I've done that isn't yet published as well. Until it is in the hands of
> > someone besides you
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > > On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> > > > > On
On Saturday 28 November 2009 13:44:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I haven't published any of my work recently, but that doesn't mean I
> > haven't done anything that I would like to share. Not sure why you feel
> > this is important however.
> >
> > I gave you a number of suggestions in private emails
>
> I haven't published any of my work recently, but that doesn't mean I haven't
> done anything that I would like to share. Not sure why you feel this is
> important however.
>
> I gave you a number of suggestions in private emails on how to fix problems
> such as the merging issue and you we
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > >
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Robert Noland wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
...
>> > I think we pissed one person off, not people, as I said, there are two
>> > people registered as BSD maintainers for drm code, oga and rnoland,
>> > neither of them cared. I'm not su
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> > > On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > >> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number
On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
> >> > people that you do not.
> >>
> >> Its git, nobody
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 12:13 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
> > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> > The headers in include/drm will be inst
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:43 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
> > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> 2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
> >> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> >> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
> >> >> > On
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> > The headers in include/drm will be installed and libdrm_radeon
>> > should be updated to use those headers inst
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > The headers in include/drm will be installed and libdrm_radeon
> > should be updated to use those headers instead of the ones in
> > radeon/ since they're what's upstream.
>
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> 2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
>> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> >> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
>> >> > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> >> >> 2009/11
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
> >> > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> >> >> >
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer :
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
>> > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > This has come up a few time and it's something I thin
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> >> > sense. Si
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 19:01 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
> >> > people that you do not.
> >>
> >> Its git, nobody
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens wrote:
> On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
>> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
>> > people that you do not.
>>
>> Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
>> maintainers
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
> > people that you do not.
>
> Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
> maintainers used it, you can just get it back by branching from the c
>
> I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of people
> that you do not.
Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
maintainers used it, you can just get it back by branching from the commit
before its removal, if you think revival is needed, do
On Friday 20 November 2009 14:20:41 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
> > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> >> > sense. Si
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt :
> On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
>> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
>> > kernel tree, i
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
> > kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, vehemens wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 November 2009 08:33:30 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
>> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 08:33:30 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
> > kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the drive
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 20:54 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:54:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the positive side is that distros using a standard/old (about
> > a year) kernel don't need to crawl the old libdrm repo and find the
> > right version (in yo
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:54:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> Yes, but the positive side is that distros using a standard/old (about
> a year) kernel don't need to crawl the old libdrm repo and find the
> right version (in your case they have to do this ° backport stuff) ...
> I think that p
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:53:22 +0100
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:07, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100
> > Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> > And how do I get releases of libdrm out outside of kernel
> >> > releases? We're doing libdrms at least
[oops, with reply-all this time]
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:07, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100
> Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> > And how do I get releases of libdrm out outside of kernel releases?
>> > We're doing libdrms at least twice a kernel cycle, because we've got
>
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> > And how do I get releases of libdrm out outside of kernel releases?
> > We're doing libdrms at least twice a kernel cycle, because we've got
> > stable fixes to push out/new interfaces to start relying on faster
> > than every 3 month
2009/11/17 Stephane Marchesin :
> 2009/11/17 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
>>> sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
>>> kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the d
2009/11/17 Kristian Høgsberg :
> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> Hi,
>>
>> This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
>> sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
>> kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git
>> repo.
>
>
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> Hi,
>
> This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
> kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git
> repo.
Ok, here's an update to the proposal. I'
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 17:42, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> >> > On
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> Okay, well in any case nothing in what you mentioned prevents the
> libdrm from living with the kernel. We could keep the compat stuff
> here, and we still have the advantages I mentioned.
>
> So is there any other reason for not putting it with the kernel?
I know BSD
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:51, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 09/11/2009 00:14, Robert Noland a écrit :
>> There are any number of changes that may occur in libdrm that do not
>> impact the KBI and users should be able to get those features/bug fixes
>> without needing a new kernel.
>
> Absolutely. In fa
Le 09/11/2009 00:14, Robert Noland a écrit :
> There are any number of changes that may occur in libdrm that do not
> impact the KBI and users should be able to get those features/bug fixes
> without needing a new kernel.
Absolutely. In fact, one of the biggest Intel performance wins lately
was i
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> >> > On
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thi
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
>> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
> > kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg :
> Hi,
>
> This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
> sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
> kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git
> repo. I've put up a repo under
Actually, I don
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 22:23:46 +0100, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> I think Joe user will install the kernel-header package of its
> distribution, and libdrm should detect at configure time kernel
> header version and people should take care to only enable new
> libdrm stuff when libdrm find the proper
Hi,
the broweseable libdrm GIT repository has a little typo:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/libdrm (not libdrm.git)
Kind Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?l=dri-devel&m=125753272918892&w=2
--
Let Crystal R
62 matches
Mail list logo
