On Don, 2011-09-15 at 15:12 -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 09/15/2011 02:41 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> > > wrote: > >> Pros: > >> 1) easier to propagate API changes across drivers (just like Linux) > >> 1a) thus easier to change ABI > > > > I suppose that's true. How often are we breaking the ABI though? How > > often do we break the ABI and it doesn't get fixed in the drivers we > > care about within a day or so? It's strange to sort of pretend that we > > care about other drivers simply for the point of this argument. > > This needs an extra sub-point: > 1b) thus easier to git-bisect issues > > The problems enterprise distros may have with merging the drivers back > into the server may be offset by this point. I used to work in a much > more enterprise-like distro role before I began at Canonical, and I can > attest that bisectable sources were a *big* win when a bug was > reproducible and the sources could actually be bisected. The current X > approach fails the latter condition.
It's not impossible now (been there, done that), though you're certainly right it would be easier. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ 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