On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:01:59 +0100 Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] > Of course, it's not for me to say how X.org (or XFree86) should be developed, > but it does seem like the X development to be done by developers formerly > known as DRI doesn't differ in any huge respect from the X development done by > others. > > If some particular project were particularly ambitious in its scope, then yes, > a branch might be in order, but I don't think that saying "oh, this is DRI > stuff, it should go on a different branch to regular X development" makes a > lot of sense. Sounds good to me. Work on support for _new_ DRI drivers should definitely go into branches. I'm thinking of the Savage DDX driver in particular. Until the 3D and DRM drivers stabilize the DDX will be changing, sometimes depending on binary incompatible changes in the DRM. I'm wondering where a developer needs CVS access to develop a new DRI driver. DDX changes would go directly to Xorg/XFree86 if the DRI tree died. DRM is in its own repository. What about the Mesa driver? Would it be developped in Xorg/XFree86 or directly in Mesa? I guess it depends in which direction you want to merge changes and in which environment you work. Someone developping on Mesa-solo would not need Xorg/XFree86 CVS access at all. > > Keith > | Felix Kühling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fxk.de.vu | | PGP Fingerprint: 6A3C 9566 5B30 DDED 73C3 B152 151C 5CC1 D888 E595 | ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X. >From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504 -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
