On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Jeff Cook wrote:
> To clarify, it's not about having secret DIB engine code, it's about
> saying "I guess we just won't find time to provide useful feedback
> until some company sponsors it...", as I saw several times during the
> old threads.
What Jeremy neglected to
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jeff Cook wrote:
> I hate to stir the pot, especially as an unknown in the community, but
> I've spent the last few hours reading WINE's history regarding DIB
> engines and it is pretty distressing.
>
> I have seen expressions of frustration from many regarding the
Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
>
>Now that "that waive with $$$" isn't very likely as the cost/benefit
>ratio isn't very good. More likely is that Codeweavers will start
>working on a Quartz driver and that work will make the DIB engine
>"cheaper" to implement. Again, this is my *personal* opinion.
>
I
Jeff Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy White wrote:
>>> This could also help. If I recall correctly, Jeremy White mentioned
>>> at Wineconf 2008 that this was a major reason they haven't invested
>>> serious energy into one themselves: they had a hard time finding an
>>> appl
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:00 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
> One additional note: We should, as a project, not accept 'broken' code. I
> work with a real-time project and get paid for this that soon will have this
> policy in effect. No broken code, it is way to hard to go back and fix it
> later.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:00 AM, James McKenzie
wrote:
>
> Also, Max's code has shown up in another 'for pay' project and where
> implementation was done, works. Where implementation is not complete, it is
> seriously broken. The problem is where it works and does not work is not
> cleanly defin
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy White wrote:
>> This could also help. If I recall correctly, Jeremy White mentioned
>> at Wineconf 2008 that this was a major reason they haven't invested
>> serious energy into one themselves: they had a hard time finding an
>> application that they cared
> This could also help. If I recall correctly, Jeremy White mentioned
> at Wineconf 2008 that this was a major reason they haven't invested
> serious energy into one themselves: they had a hard time finding an
> application that they cared about that benefited significantly from a
> DIB engine.
Juan Lang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
this has in fact come up before, and been addressed. The main problem
with the current attempt, as far as I know, is that the risk of
regressions is so high that only very high quality changes stand any
chance of getting accepted. In the case of a DIB engine, the atte
Hi Jeff,
this has in fact come up before, and been addressed. The main problem
with the current attempt, as far as I know, is that the risk of
regressions is so high that only very high quality changes stand any
chance of getting accepted. In the case of a DIB engine, the attempts
have usually r
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Jeff Cook wrote:
> Alexandre is right that the
> architecture is a lot of work, but I am not asking for him to write
> out a complete spec, and I don't think the community is, either; the
> main thing, as far as I can tell, is that the interaction and feedback
> on
I hate to stir the pot, especially as an unknown in the community, but
I've spent the last few hours reading WINE's history regarding DIB
engines and it is pretty distressing.
I have seen expressions of frustration from many regarding the
handling of the mostly-functional DIB engine that Massimo w
12 matches
Mail list logo
