Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> Major bumps once stuff went into the kernel weren't allowed at all.
>> You'd need to fork the driver in any case. So we did this once or
>> twice on drivers in devel trees like mach64.
>> However upstream first policy should avoid this need. I'd also prefer
>> to see getpar
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Keith Whitwell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Major bumps once stuff went into the kernel weren't allowed at all.
>> You'd need to fork the driver in any case. So we did this once or
>> twice on drivers in devel trees like mach64.
>> However upstream first policy sho
> Major bumps once stuff went into the kernel weren't allowed at all.
> You'd need to fork the driver in any case. So we did this once or
> twice on drivers in devel trees like mach64.
> However upstream first policy should avoid this need. I'd also prefer
> to see getparam for new features instead
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Hellström
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Hellström
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> This process looks ok to me,
>>> but I think some clarifications are needed:
>>>
>>> Dave
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Hellström
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> This process looks ok to me,
>> but I think some clarifications are needed:
>>
>> Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>>> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
>>> http://dri.freedesktop.org/
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Hellström
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> This process looks ok to me,
> but I think some clarifications are needed:
>
> Dave Airlie wrote:
>>
>> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
>> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess
>>
>> and I've pasted it
Dave,
This process looks ok to me,
but I think some clarifications are needed:
Dave Airlie wrote:
> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess
>
> and I've pasted it in below this for discussion.
>
> some other points:
>
> a) People are pushing for a process c
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 13:35 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert Noland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:15 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
> >> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess
> >>
> >> and I've past
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Robert Noland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:15 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
>> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess
>>
>> and I've pasted it in below this for discussion.
>>
>> some other points:
>>
>>
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 10:15 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Okay I've put some thoughts up at:
> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess
>
> and I've pasted it in below this for discussion.
>
> some other points:
>
> a) People are pushing for a process change, we will have something
> change, how
On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:15 pm Dave Airlie wrote:
> DRM Development Process (Proposed)
>
> 1. Master branch in Linux tree style with links for BSD etc.
>
> 2. Always compatible with current release Linux kernel + with
> backwards compat *where* practical for older kernels. We should
> probably
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 14:17 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:27 pm Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Jesse Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:03 pm Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> > >> > As for the "new develo
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Jesse Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:27 pm Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>>
>> I am outlining the fact that you confuse a problem and its solution.
>>
>> Problem: merging stuff upstream takes time to Dave
>> Your solution: have lots o
On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:27 pm Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Jesse Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:03 pm Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> >> > As for the "new development model"... Things are actually worse than I
> >> > thought.
14 matches
Mail list logo