On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:30:02PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > Personally, I would prefer a monolithic tree with separate branches for > backporting driver changes to older server versions. I would also prefer > each driver having a stated policy of how many back revisions of servers > are supported by upstream X.org. This would allow the distros to stay on > a given server branch, still receive upstream driver updates, and ensure > there is an understanding of the level of support for each individual > driver. Also, it would keep each branch clean of the server abi #ifdefs > and whatnot, including in back server branches.
This is the approach I'd prefer too. Regardless of who does the work needed for backporting, X.Org/fd.o should host the results, and using the server's stable branches as the common location for those backports makes sense to me. Just wanted to throw my vote into the ring... Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
