On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:04:10 +0000, José Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: >> mesa_7_7_branch and master are becoming quite different, because of all >> the gallium interface changes that have been going into master, so >> merging fixes from mesa_7_7_branch into master is becoming less and less >> of a trivial exercise. >> >> This is aggravated by the fact we are basing a release from the >> mesa_7_7_branch, so it's likely that we'll need to have temporary >> non-invasive bugfixes that should not go into master (which should >> receive instead the proper and potentially invasive fix). >> >> I see a few alternatives here: >> >> a) stop merging mesa_7_7_branch -> master. bugfixes should be applied to >> both branches. preferably by the person that wrote the patch. > > This, please. I still hate the merge stable -> master plan, because it > means that the drivers of people other than the one doing the merge gets > broken.
I would prefer this as well. Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
