On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:30 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Monday, January 12, 2009 3:22 am Tomas Carnecky wrote: > > On 01/09/2009 06:32 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > Oh, don't use the modesetting-gem branch anymore. The master branch of > > > the drm tree has all the libdrm bits you need, and Linus' git tree has > > > the kernel mode setting bits you need (even better would be to use Eric's > > > tree, it has a few fixes destined for Linus: > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anholt/drm-intel > > > drm-intel-next branch). > > > > Many of the fdo and kernel.org trees have such old branches. In git > > these are basically throwaway branches where features are developed. But > > once the branches are merged into master, they have no reason to exist > > anymore. Having them there just confuses people. Would you consider > > deleting some of the old branches? > > > > For example, of the 70 branches in xf86-video-intel, 27 have already > > been merged with master (git branch -r --merged origin/master). > > Yeah, we could probably do better at removing old branches. In the specific > case of modesetting-gem though (and modesetting-101) we need to keep them > around, both for reference and because the radeon stuff is still active in > modesetting-gem afaik. >
I think once radeon modesetting is merged (and nouveau too) upstream we can kill those branch too. There isn't much things in there that won't be upstream, they seem like a sand box to me :) Cheers, Jerome ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
