Quoting Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sorry, this is not how it goes. We won't be willing
> > to adopt anything blindly. There is a German saying
> > applying here:
> > 'Never buy a cat in the bag!'
> >
> > 1. First there should be a proposal
> > 2. Secondly there should be a test imp
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm attaching the output from scanpci -v.
>
> When I run the command "XFree86 -configure" it give the message:
> XFree86 has found a valid card configuration.
> Unfortunately the appropriate data has not been added to xf86PciInfo.h.
> Please forward '
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 09:33:34AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>
>>>There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike, particularly his
>>>interest in forking XFree86 and creating his own work. At least I think
>>>interestingand BTW doesn't the ATI
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 09:00:56AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, G O Economou wrote:
>
>>http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/
>>
>>There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike,
>>particularly his interest in forking XFree86 and creating his
>>own work.
>
>You seem to
David,
I think your comments about bugs in Bugzilla skewing towards
Linux and new hardware were right on the money.
...but don't you think such skew is statistically inevitable?
There are IMO two desires here, and I argue they do not conflict:
- Making sure XFree86 does become unduly influenced
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:12:27PM +, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
>
>> Well there's still http://mail-thearchive.com. What ever did happen to marc
>> on this one?
>
>Indeed devel and xfree86 appear to be at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/ind
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09:21AM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
>Matt Wilson writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 07:21:04PM -0500, Georgina Economou wrote:
> > >
> > > So Matt am I to take it that Redhat is looking to push forward with
> > > its Bugzilla and thus get more experience and in the end pai
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:10:14AM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
>Matt Wilson writes:
> >
> > I'm not attempting to bully anyone, nor have I argued that you or any
> > other member (individual or corporate) of XFree86. However, there are
> > plenty of volunteers that are offering to set up and mainta
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:14:41PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 07:23:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>> Since you mention those $200 Walmart systems, has anyone actually
>> seen one? They don't have them in any Walmart I've been to -- only
>> the $600+ HP and eMachines system
A
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:59:34PM -0500, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>> > >I'd not in a position to accuse anyone, but I'm reminded of the saying:
>> > >"The best is the enemy of the good".
>> > >
>> > >* Read access to the patch@ and fixes@ lists would be helpful, then
>> > >we would all have an
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:50:00PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Would this also see what patches have come in and see where they are
>> applicable?
>> What about areas that come in that are distro specific, does that go to the
>> distro maintainer of to XFree86?
>
>Clearly, a distro maintaine
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Tim Roberts wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:12:21 -0800 (PST), Mark Vojkovich wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Tim Roberts wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> As I recall, there is work going on to eliminate this problem by allowing
> >> our drivers to claim a whole range of PCI
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:14:31PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 06:06:31PM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:48:36PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:01:01PM +0100, Fernando Herrera wrote:
>> > >Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:15:15PM -05
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:25:35PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Specifically, there are people in Gnome chomping at the bit to help with
>the xfree86 bug setup and triage problem, with experience at running
>the Gnome bugzilla system.
>
>Only time will tell how well this will work out, but my s
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:05:45AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>Like Reply-To:? Now the status of the list has changed, is the decision to
>have a Reply-To: header added also up for reconsideration? :)
We have to draw a line somewhere :-)
David
--
David Dawes
Release Engineer/Architect
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:19:29AM -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
>After coming in to find 170-odd messages from the new [Devel] list in my inbox,
>I decided to switch to digest mode. However, mailman tells me that "the list
>administrator has disabled digest delivery for this list". Any particular
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:12:21 -0800 (PST), Mark Vojkovich wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> As I recall, there is work going on to eliminate this problem by allowing
>> our drivers to claim a whole range of PCI IDs, eliminating the need for
>> xf86PciInfo.h. Is that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm very surprised anyone would object to this. This tag, which is
> common to mailman lists, is enormously useful for e-mail filtering.
> It certainly helps me distinguish mailing list messages from the
> depressingly vast array of e-mail I already get just by scannin
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:30:05PM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>Just seeking clarification of wether or not the general public
>has access to subscribe to the 2 patch mailing lists now or not
>after David declared the private lists to be no longer private.
I declared the "devel" list to be no lo
[Georgina Economou]
> No Mike, I am talking about who controls the reports and who sees
> them. Who owns the data? This is RHAT's baby, Bugzilla, so I take
> it that they would be a serious Admin to this and would have the
> ability to pull data as they want, without asking XFree86 for it.
How d
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Tim Roberts wrote:
[...]
> As I recall, there is work going on to eliminate this problem by allowing our
> drivers to claim a whole range of PCI IDs, eliminating the need for
> xf86PciInfo.h. Is that work present in 4.3.0?
>
xf86PciInfo.h isn't needed. I stopped ad
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 07:36:57PM -0500, Matt Wilson wrote:
>As for providing resources - we've done this for many projects that
>have approached us. For example:
>
>[msw@sid openoffice]$ host bugzilla.gnome.org
>bugzilla.gnome.org has address 209.116.70.84
>[msw@sid openoffice]$ whois [EMAIL PR
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:29:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>When I run the command "XFree86 -configure" it give the message:
>XFree86 has found a valid card configuration.
>Unfortunately the appropriate data has not been added to xf86PciInfo.h.
>Please forward 'scanpci -v' output to XFree86 sup
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:10:14AM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Matt Wilson writes:
> >
> > I'm not attempting to bully anyone, nor have I argued that you or any
> > other member (individual or corporate) of XFree86. However, there are
> > plenty of volunteers that are offering to set up and m
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:10:14AM +0100, Egbert Eich scrawled:
> Matt Wilson writes:
> > I'm not attempting to bully anyone, nor have I argued that you or any
> > other member (individual or corporate) of XFree86. However, there are
> > plenty of volunteers that are offering to set up and maintai
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:43:14 +0100 (CET) Krasi Zlatev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> I would like to gather inforamtion about all the
> running X applicaiotns.
> Thus I do
> Window root = RootWindow (dpy, screenno);
> XQueryTree (dpy, root, &dummywindow, &dummywindow,
> &children, &nchildren);
>
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
> > So.. any chance of GATOS getting into XFree86? ;o)
> This question gets asked very often. The answer is that part of GATOS is
> already there. The part that isn't is TV-in and hardware Xv for mach64
> cards. And it was submitted but it takes qui
Well, there's some changes happening...
I've used X and been a promoter since Rev 9, and I have some of J Gettys
personally coded stuff around just for grins --
We've all been waiting for X to 'grow up', and with Linux becoming a viable
desktop alternative for at least the literate masses, perhap
Mike A. Harris wrote (in a message from Monday 13)
> I'd be interested also in hearing feedback and comments from
> Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
> Caldera, and other Linux and BSD distribution XFree86
> package maintainers, and other developers also. I've talked
I'm attaching the output from scanpci -v.
When I run the command "XFree86 -configure" it give the message:
XFree86 has found a valid card configuration.
Unfortunately the appropriate data has not been added to xf86PciInfo.h.
Please forward 'scanpci -v' output to XFree86 support team.
from everyth
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >One could go through an evolutionary process, from developers, to invited
> >others, to fully open.
>
> That's an idea I hadn't thought of, one which could be good too
> possibly. It would remove the po
> >> mentioned on there are my decision to branch the Radeon driver
> >> and to contribute stuff back to the XFree86 project. How that is
> >> seen as a fork of the entire project, I'm unsure. I'll be the
> >> first to admit that I'd be completely unable to fork the entire
> >> XFree86 project on
[about bug database system]
> I'd be interested also in hearing feedback and comments from
> Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
> Caldera, and other Linux and BSD distribution XFree86
> package maintainers, and other developers also. I've talked
> personally with some o
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
>> Personally, I'd love to see interest from core developers to at
>> least poke their toe in the water, and some of them have already
>> suggested they'd give it a shot and if it worked out ok, they'd
>> use it.
>>
>
>I have not seen this comment. Wh
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
[Extremely large nontrimmed quote snipped]
>> Since I am a member however, I get both of these lists
>> automatically and can't be sure if they're public now or not.
>
>A member? A member of what? The public lists? Not sure to what
>memberhsip you a
> > > XFree86 project on my own, and that it would be a very large
> > > amount of work without any guaranteed gains in return.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, there is a fork of XFree already - in dri.sf.net and another one
> > of ati driver only in gatos.sf.net.
>
> I agree that the latter can be conside
>>Please could we drop the [Devel] which serves no useful purpose and
>>just obscures the _real_ subject line?
>
>I'm very surprised anyone would object to this. This tag, which is common to
>mailman lists, is enormously useful for e-mail filtering. It certainly helps
>me distinguish mailing
- Original Message -
From: "Terrance A. Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> All,
>
> I'm not sure what started all this, seems like we need a new paradigm.
>
> Maybe its time to *really* open
- Original Message -
From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >One could go through an evolutionary process, from developers, to invi
- Original Message -
From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
> >> As far as commit access goes, frankly, if those asking for it could
Hans Mittendorf wrote (in a message from Monday 13)
> Hello,
>
> Installing X11 on a Mac under OS 10.2.3 gave a problem related to typing
> inside xterm from a french keyboard. For typing m¹ I have ;¹.
> Changing keyboard to US via software, does not change anything. Therefore,
> my questi
After coming in to find 170-odd messages from the new [Devel] list in my inbox,
I decided to switch to digest mode. However, mailman tells me that "the list
administrator has disabled digest delivery for this list". Any particular
reason why this is so?
--
- Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:00:01AM -0800, Tim Roberts wrote:
> I'm very surprised anyone would object to this. This tag, which is common to
> mailman lists, is enormously useful for e-mail filtering. It certainly helps
> me distinguish mailing list messages from the depressingly vast array of e
Title: Xterm on Mac OSX
Hello,
Installing X11 on a Mac under OS 10.2.3 gave a problem related to typing inside xterm from a french keyboard. For typing ‘m’ I have ‘;’.
Changing keyboard to US via software, does not change anything. Therefore, my question: does XFree86 4.2.1 support french keybo
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 09:14:19 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>Please could we drop the [Devel] which serves no useful purpose and
>just obscures the _real_ subject line?
I'm very surprised anyone would object to this. This tag, which is common to
mailman lists, is enormously useful for e-mail
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
>> >I could see how one distro could use bugzilla very well against
>> >another's for slick marketing
>>
>> More conspiracy theories? ;o) A common theme lately. ;o)
>>
>> Anyway, if a bug is distro specific, then IMHO it is rather
>> obvious, and ev
All,
I'm not sure what started all this, seems like we need a new paradigm.
Maybe its time to *really* open source X. A foundation of some sort?
I just hacker, so I'll go with whatever works.
..Just an idea.
T
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Mark Vojkovich wrote:
..
>
>Where I work, bug tracking is necessarily tied to source control
> in rather strict ways. Ways that I don't necessarily like, and
> would not want to see XFree86 emulate. But I can envision non-
> intrusive bug tracking.
>
> Mark.
Thi
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >This seems to be another angle ;) My point was that the easier it is for
>> >patches to go in the more attractive the project looks to new developers.
>>
>> I couldn't agree with you more.
>>
>
>Personal experience:
>
>I had a simple patch to fix a
- Original Message -
From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
>
> >
> >I could see how one distro could use bugzilla very well against
>
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Egbert Eich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Egbert Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11
>
> >> The Linux kernel for example has a very large source code base,
> >> and has countless developers whom have worked on it under the
> >> Bazaar model, and the code is quite high quality. People write
> >> good patches, and people write bad patches regardless of what
> >> model of development
Keith Packard writes:
> Around 10 o'clock on Jan 13, Egbert Eich wrote:
>
> > To make RandR rotation work one needs layer support. I have a
> > sample implementaion (it takes two lines per driver) however
> > this is too experimental to bee added to 4.3 I'm afraid.
>
> I have done a more
>
> >> The Linux kernel for example has a very large source code base,
> >> and has countless developers whom have worked on it under the
> >> Bazaar model, and the code is quite high quality. People write
> >> good patches, and people write bad patches regardless of what
> >> model of development
Hi guys,
I have a programming problem on RH Linux 7.3. I wrote a X-motif program. It
works fine on Solaris 7 or 8, and windows system if an X server is
installed. So I wounder if it is the problem for XFree86 server.
I want the background color of text to be blinking. If I just simply change
t
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
>What about areas that come in that are distro specific, does that go to the
>distro maintainer of to XFree86?
If a bug is reported, and the reporter indicates they are using
FooLinux, if it can be shown that it is easily a FooLinux
specific problem
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> Is a bug tracking system necessarily imposing? Perhaps it's not
>well understood what's really involved with one. Keeping track
>of what is broken and when it gets fixed seems like a good idea
>to me. What does this impose on developers?
Nothing i
On 12 Jan 2003, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> You know I never for the life of me understood that. I would have thougtht
>> that every developer would be interested and see if their patch bumped horns
>> with another.
>> As former postmaster I received, I think, a total of two requests. Weird.
>>
>> Ge
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Kamil Toman wrote:
>Bugzilla may help a bit (if it was activelly maintained). I
>don't expect bugreports regarding x-protocol.
Indeed, such type of bug report is extremely rare.
>I'm quite sure that most of reports would concern drivers.
I can back that up with my own exper
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
>Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:59:55 +0100
>From: Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Subject: RandR status
>
>I'm sorry if this is a FAQ:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One could go through an evolutionary process, from developers, to invited
>others, to fully open.
That's an idea I hadn't thought of, one which could be good too
possibly. It would remove the potential threat of incoming bug
reports of the form:
=
On 13 Jan 2003, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>Date: 13 Jan 2003 16:41:24 +0100
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
>
>[Egbert Eich]
>> Up to now it is no
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>> Where hardware is concerned, such as the video drivers, I would
>> agree. More often than not, having the hardware documentation is
>> required, or is at least quite helpful. However, the entire
>> XFree86 sources contain libraries, extensions, a
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>> >http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/
>> >
>> >There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike,
>> >particularly his interest in forking XFree86 and creating his
>> >own work.
>>
>> You seem to have some deep misconceptions. The only thing
Title: ATI Mobility U1/igp320M/device 0x4336 <- X setup issue
I'm attaching the output from scanpci -v.
When I run the command "XFree86 -configure" it give the message:
XFree86 has found a valid card configuration.
Unfortunately the appropriate data has not been added to xf86PciInfo.h.
Pleas
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 04:27:03PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Actually, there is a fork of XFree already - in dri.sf.net and another one
> > of ati driver only in gatos.sf.net.
>
> I agree that the latter can be considered a fork, but the former
> definitely isn't - the DRI and XFree86 reposi
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:59:55 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RandR status
> -
> I'm sorry if this is a FAQ:
>
> Is RandR going to be in 4.3?
Yes, but it may be disabled by default unless we can get a bug
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:59:55 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RandR status
> -
> I'm sorry if this is a FAQ:
>
> Is RandR going to be in 4.3?
Yes, but it may be disabled by default unless we can get a bug
Around 10 o'clock on Jan 13, Egbert Eich wrote:
> To make RandR rotation work one needs layer support. I have a
> sample implementaion (it takes two lines per driver) however
> this is too experimental to bee added to 4.3 I'm afraid.
I have done a more complete investigation in September and dec
I'm sorry if this is a FAQ:
Is RandR going to be in 4.3?
If so, are there any changes/additions to be made in the drivers in
order to support RandR?
If so, is there any documentation available on how to do this?
Thomas
--
Thomas Winischhofer
Maintainer of XFree86 SiS driver
Vienna/Austria
mai
I would like to gather inforamtion about all the
running X applicaiotns.
Thus I do
Window root = RootWindow (dpy, screenno);
XQueryTree (dpy, root, &dummywindow, &dummywindow,
&children, &nchildren);
for (i = 0; i < nchildren; i++) {
if (XGetWindowAttributes(dpy, children[i],
&attr) && (at
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Egbert Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:10:14 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> -
> Matt Wilson writes:
> >
> > I'm not attempting to bully anyone, nor have I argued that you or any
> > other membe
[Egbert Eich]
> Up to now it is not even clear who should be able to
> submit to this bug tracking system:
> Should it be internal only?
> Should only projects like GNOME, KDE etc and distributions like
> RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake be able to submit bugs?
> Or should it be open to the general public?
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 16:10, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, G O Economou wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/
> > >
> > >There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike,
> > >particularly his interest in for
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>
> >> I'm very happy to hear this! I hope we can get more of a developer
> >> community going, like I've been feeling in #xfree86 recently. However,
> >> I still think the specs are valuable (I've used a
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, G O Economou wrote:
>
> >http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/
> >
> >There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike,
> >particularly his interest in forking XFree86 and creating his
> >own work.
>
> You seem to have some de
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>> As far as commit access goes, frankly, if those asking for it could
>> establish a record of submitting complete and correct patches that didn't
>> need review (and Mike, your record on this isn't anything to boast
>> about), then you might have a
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Fernando Herrera wrote:
>>So it's OK for Linux kernel developers to object to having a bug tracking
>>system imposed on them but not OK for XFree86 developers? If that's
>>what you're telling me, then I have nothing more to say on this topic.
In that context alone, I would a
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>> I'm very happy to hear this! I hope we can get more of a developer
>> community going, like I've been feeling in #xfree86 recently. However,
>> I still think the specs are valuable (I've used a couple of them, and
>> expect to again) even if the
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>>There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike, particularly his
>>interest in forking XFree86 and creating his own work. At least I think
>>interestingand BTW doesn't the ATI maintainer work for Redhat?
>
>Definitely interesting.
>
>One main po
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, G O Economou wrote:
>http://www.advogato.org/person/mharris/
>
>There are allot of interesting comments here by Mike,
>particularly his interest in forking XFree86 and creating his
>own work.
You seem to have some deep misconceptions. The only things I've
mentioned on there
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
> Well there's still http://mail-thearchive.com. What ever did happen to marc
> on this one?
Indeed devel and xfree86 appear to be at
http://www.mail-archive.com/index.php?hunt=xfree86
The xfree86 list has appeared on
http://marc.the
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
> From: "David Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:24:54AM +, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > >* Read access to the patch@ and fixes@ lists would be helpful, then
> > >we would all have an idea of the backlog.
> > It's been there
Title: this list is archived
you can read this list on http://mail-archive.com, starting now.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09:21AM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Asking OpenSource projects for money to get consulted?
> I don't think you'd get any business from XFree86 either :-)))
Of course not - which is why I was so confused by the comment in the
first place.
Cheers,
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Dawes writes:
>
> It's as simple as me not liking the tools I use during my spare
> time being imposed on me by groups that have more to gain from my
> using them than I do. This big clamour is not coming from the end
> user community, but from groups like gnome, and distros like Red
Matt Wilson writes:
>
> I'm not attempting to bully anyone, nor have I argued that you or any
> other member (individual or corporate) of XFree86. However, there are
> plenty of volunteers that are offering to set up and maintain a bug
> tracking system for you. I think that such a project
Matt Wilson writes:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 07:21:04PM -0500, Georgina Economou wrote:
> >
> > So Matt am I to take it that Redhat is looking to push forward with
> > its Bugzilla and thus get more experience and in the end paid work
> > with it like VA did with Sourceforge? That sounds ver
David Dawes writes:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:01:01PM +0100, Fernando Herrera wrote:
> >Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:15:15PM -0500, David Dawes escribió:
> >
> >>So it's OK for Linux kernel developers to object to having a bug tracking
> >>system imposed on them but not OK for XFree86 developers
David Dawes writes:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:25:35PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Specifically, there are people in Gnome chomping at the bit to help with
> >the xfree86 bug setup and triage problem, with experience at running
> >the Gnome bugzilla system.
>
> >Only time will tell
90 matches
Mail list logo
