On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 21:06 +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Friday 02 of October 2009, Ping wrote:
>
> > I think moving drivers into xserver tree benefits both driver and xserver
> > developers as well as distro maintainers.
>
> As distro maintainer I hated monolitic X. It's was nightmar
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:18 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> That said, e.g., what will happen with drivers which can't or don't want
> to be in the xserver tree? Like GPL input drivers, or the Gallium Xorg
> state tracker, which really wants to live in the Gallium tree at least
> for the time being.
2009/10/2 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
> On Friday 02 of October 2009, Ping wrote:
>
> > I think moving drivers into xserver tree benefits both driver and xserver
> > developers as well as distro maintainers.
>
> As distro maintainer I hated monolitic X. It's was nightmare to patch it
> and
> fix some bu
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:06, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Friday 02 of October 2009, Ping wrote:
I think moving drivers into xserver tree benefits both driver and
xserver
developers as well as distro maintainers.
As distro maintainer I hated monolitic X. It's was nightmare to
patch it an
On Friday 02 of October 2009, Ping wrote:
> I think moving drivers into xserver tree benefits both driver and xserver
> developers as well as distro maintainers.
As distro maintainer I hated monolitic X. It's was nightmare to patch it and
fix some build issues. Modular drivers are very nice for
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:59 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:35 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
> > had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
> > substance of Peter's ma
2009/10/2 Michel Dänzer
> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 08:26 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > There were a couple of different motivations for this, one was to make
> > building things a great deal easier
> Would it really? IME complications have mostly been due to things like
> protos, not directly bet
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:18:38 +0200
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > What're your concerns?
>
> First of all, surely the onus is on those who want to move the drivers
> into the xserver tree to present convincing arguments in support of
> it.
I think you've been present at some of the earlier conferences
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:14:23AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:59 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> > So I feel locking down master is going to get messy fast, I agree
>> > all major developments should be done on branch
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 08:26 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:14:23AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:59 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > So I feel locking down master is going to get messy fast, I agree
> > > all major developments should be done on
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 08:04:08AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:36:39AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 2009, at 19:43, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >> Question: tree on people.fdo or branch on the main repo?
> >> branches on the main repo have the advantage of
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:35 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
> > had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
> > substance of Peter's m
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:14:23AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:59 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > So I feel locking down master is going to get messy fast, I agree
> > all major developments should be done on branches, but we have many
> > incremental improvements in areas
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:36:39AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 19:43, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> Question: tree on people.fdo or branch on the main repo?
>> branches on the main repo have the advantage of the commit list which
>> provides some chance for patch review.
>
On Sep 30, 2009, at 19:43, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Development model: xserver master will be closed to general
commits; it
will be owned by the RM, or one of their delegates. Again, DO NOT
COMMIT DIRECTLY TO XSERVER MASTER. Everyone should have their own
xserver trees, and/or one per subsyste
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:59 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:35 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
> > had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
> > substance of Peter's m
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:59:05AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> My main issue with this is, while we'd like to be the kernel, we have in
> no way got the developer/testers bandwidth they have. Generally when
> developing a feature for the kernel, you can find someone else to
> interact with whi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> My main issue with this is, while we'd like to be the kernel, we have in
> no way got the developer/testers bandwidth they have. Generally when
> developing a feature for the kernel, you can find someone else to
> interact with while you write t
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:59:05AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:35 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
> > had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
> > substance of Pet
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 18:35 -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
> had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
> substance of Peter's mail, and here are our rough conclusions.
>
> Release process: We
Hi all,
Following on from Peter's email about the 1.8/7.6 release process[0], we
had a BoF about the same[1] at XDC. Everyone broadly agreed on the
substance of Peter's mail, and here are our rough conclusions.
Release process: We're going to aim for a six-month release process, as
Peter outlined
21 matches
Mail list logo
