On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> If you'd made it clear that you wanted the interface to be stable
> before it got merged, I suspect that it simply wouldn't have been merged
> until the interface was stable.
What kind of excuse is that? It's "we did bad things, but if we didn't do
those bad things, we'd have done _other_ bad things"?
Two wrong choices don't make a right.
Nobody has even answered me whether this is _forwards_compatible. It
clearly isn't backwards-compatible. IOW, is there _any_ way to move
back-and-forth over that commit, even if I can find a new libdrm?
IOW, we know we have a problem here. But what's the solution? I know I can
revert it (I tried, I'm running that kernel now, nouveau works). That's
not a good solution, I know. But can you offer me a _better_ one? One that
doesn't involve "upgrade all the way to rawhide, and lose the ability to
bisect anything, or run plain 2.6.33".
So yes, I'm complaining. But I at least have mentioned one solution. You,
in contast, are just making excuses with no solutions.
Linus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
