Tormod Volden writes: > >> And ideally Cyril's 02-* dualhead patch should go upstream, so > >> review of that would be welcome too. > > > > I'm not certain what meets upstream's standards? It's sitting > > ineffectively at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18472 ; > > I assume the problem is there no real maintainer there to accept it. > > > > I know it's been getting plenty of in-the-field testing > > though. Getting this segfault fixed upstream probably requires getting > > 18472 commited first. > > Yes, I think the problem is the lack of a maintainer or someone who > cares. There is no real "upstream" since no X.org people use this > driver, can test it, or can justify spending time on it. IMO as long > as it doesn't introduce regressions the patch should be applied. > Personally I am not so inclined to apply it and to some degree > implicitly accept the support burden and maintainership since I don't > have the hardware the test, and not enough technical insight to be > deal with it without testing. However if I can collect some > Reviewed-by's and Tested-by's and someone stays around for testing I > could do it.
I'm happy to count as a Tested-by, and as far as I can tell the patch 02_tentatively_unbreak_dual_head.diff looks sane to me. I'm unfortunately not very familiar with the Xorg low-level internals to do any kind of comparison to any other (if any) more-nearly maintained legacy driver. What kind of testing is needed? Just simple "HEAD doesn't have obvious regressions on my hardware"? If so, I did test a very close variant to the patch that's in LP 1180986, and it mostly worked, but as I said, I got droppings on the second head. - Robert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
