Keith Whitwell pisze:
> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:16 -0800, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>   
>> On 08.12.2009 16:49, michal wrote:
>>     
>>> Roland Scheidegger pisze:
>>>       
>>>> On 08.12.2009 15:55, michal wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>>>> This branch simplifies pipe/p_format.h by making enum pipe_format what 
>>>>> it should have been -- an enum.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result there is no extra information encoded in it and one needs to 
>>>>> use auxiliary/util/u_format.h to get that info instead. Linking to the 
>>>>> auxiliary/util lib is necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and if you can test if it doesn't break your setup, I will 
>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear from r300 and nouveau guys, as those drivers were 
>>>>> using some internal macros and I weren't 100% sure I got the conversion 
>>>>> right.
>>>>>     
>>>>>           
>>>> Looks nice, though it is unfortunately based on pre gallium-noblocks
>>>> merge, so I suspect you'll get a conflict for almost every patch chunk
>>>> at least in drivers if you try to merge it...
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> I didn't touch pipe blocks -- I left the pf_getblock* and friends in 
>>> pipe_format.h intact.
>>>       
>> Yes, but you're bound to get lots of conflicts because you replaced for
>> instance pf_format_get_block with util_format_get_block whereas that
>> stuff is removed from master because pipe_format_block (and the
>> block/nblocksx/nblocksy variables in pipe_texture and pipe_transfer) are
>> gone completely.
>> I quickly tried a merge and there were conflicts in over 40 files - from
>> a quick glance though they should be trivial to resolve. And I don't
>> think there's too much hidden stuff which won't work any longer - just
>> let util_format_get_block die and it should probably work out ok.
>>
>>     
>>> How severe is the gallium-noblocks change? I would like to avoid mergin 
>>> master into this branch.
>>>       
>> It's not really that severe, it just touched a lot of the same places in
>> drivers this change does.
>> btw, I also avoided merging master to feature branch when I merged
>> gallium-noblocks, and instead fixed up conflicts on merge to master (and
>> adpated stuff which needed changes later). Is there some policy for this?
>>     
>
> Ian's video of Linus talking about merges may give some clues?
>
>
>   
Keith,

Do I have your ack on that branch and can go ahead and merge it back to 
master?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Mesa3d-dev mailing list
Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev

Reply via email to