This may be OT... On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 14:58, Brian Paul wrote: [snip] > I think I'm one of the few who still reads this list. > [snip] > We thought it was more important to invest > our time in the drivers and infrastructure code than writing/updating > design documents. The DRI is very complicated and takes a lot of > time to understand. [snip]
That kind of leaves the DRI in a bit of a pickle regards future development as open source. It is *hard* if not *impossible* for a newcomers to understand the existing code base. I can vouch for that, although I don't clam to be a very experienced programmer ( ~5 years). There are no useful documents and non of the original authors are around to hand hold anyone who wants to try and get involved (and most people would need some serious hand holding). And even if there where, it would require a huge investment of time before you could do anything useful. It's interesting that it's turn out this way and I think due to the shear size of the project and skill set required to under stand it. Kernel + DRI + X11 + Mesa + GLX, it's a big pile of code - at least for me. Is the size/complexity of a project that can be attempted with open source fundamentally limited? Would better documentation help or is the learning curve just too steep for most would-be DRI hackers? If better doc's would help, who has the knowledge and time (or funding) to do it? And an unrelated question : Do Matrox release there changes back into CVS? - I guess they have to under the GPL. Mike Lincoln University of Essex _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
