On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:15:34AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:08:42 +0100
> Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> > probably best if I just summarize all
On Monday, 30 January 2017 10:49:10 EET Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:30:43AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.
> > > html
> > > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html>
>
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:08:42 +0100
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
> throw them out here for discussions:
>
> - When's a
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:30:43AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html
> > https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
>
> apache throws 403.
We're looking into it. Adding Tomi, who's herding the
Hi,
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
apache throws 403.
cheers,
Gerd
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:50:42AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >>> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by
> >>>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by
>>> the author? We have a bunch of drivers with effectively just 1 person
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> - Should it be an entire separate tree for soc drivers? Problem here
>>>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:55:22AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >> I'm not certain number of people is a good metric, TBH. There are cases
> >> where a lot of people are working on a driver, but the patches are not
> >>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> I'm not certain number of people is a good metric, TBH. There are cases
>> where a lot of people are working on a driver, but the patches are not being
>> merged to the maintainer tree. In these cases, it makes sense to
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> - Should we require review or at least acks for patches committed by
>> the author? We have a bunch of drivers with effectively just 1 person
>> working on it, where getting real review is hard. But otoh a few of
>> those
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> - Should it be an entire separate tree for soc drivers? Problem here
>> is that we lack a volunteer group (and imo it really should be a group
>> to avoid
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:12:16PM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > >
> > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric),
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:57:25PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi Liviu
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> > > probably best
Hi Liviu
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
> > throw them out
Daniel Vetter writes:
> Hi all,
>
> We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
> throw them out here for discussions:
>
> - When's a driver small enough for a shared tree, and when
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:42:12PM +, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> >
> > We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> > probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
> throw them out here for discussions:
>
> - When's a driver small enough for a shared
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:08:42PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Daniel,
>
> We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
> probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
> throw them out here for discussions:
>
> - When's a driver small enough
Hi all,
We've discussed this a bit at LCA (with Dave and Eric), and it's
probably best if I just summarize all the questions and opens and
throw them out here for discussions:
- When's a driver small enough for a shared tree, and when is a
separate tree a good idea? i915 and amdgpu are
20 matches
Mail list logo