Hi,
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:40:55PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
Because unpublished work doesn't exist That goes for the work that
I've done that isn't yet published as well. Until it is in the hands of
someone besides yourself
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 20:40 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 22
On Sunday 29 November 2009 00:31:17 Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:40:55PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
Because unpublished work doesn't exist That goes for the work that
I've done that isn't yet published as
On Sunday 29 November 2009 07:07:41 Robert Noland wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 20:40 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
On
I enjoy playing the devils advocate occasionally, so take this with a
grain of salt.
My understanding is that there are roughly 3 bsd kernels that support
drm userspace interface(free*, open* and netbsd?), each has 1 or 2
maintainers. For better or worse the linux guys/girls have gone their
own
On Sunday 29 November 2009 10:39:34 Maarten Maathuis wrote:
I enjoy playing the devils advocate occasionally, so take this with a
grain of salt.
My understanding is that there are roughly 3 bsd kernels that support
drm userspace interface(free*, open* and netbsd?), each has 1 or 2
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
[snip]
Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
collobration.
[snip]
The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now.
[snip]
Again, your missing the point of using a development structure
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
[snip]
Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
collobration.
[snip]
The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now.
[snip]
On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
[snip]
Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
collobration.
[snip]
The
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:36:51 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
[snip]
Your missing the point of using a development
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 05:03:51PM -0800, vehemens wrote:
You missing the point as is rnoland. Just because the linux DRM developers
stopped using a centralized repository, didn't mean FreeBSD shouldn't as the
intial integration work would be still shared reducing the burden on any one
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:36:51 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 18:54:31 vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:36 -0800, vehemens wrote:
I believe that moving away from the current model makes it more
difficult
to ... spread the burden ..., hence my objections. If you want to
call
that ranting or complaining, so be it.
We no longer get to share the burden with the much
On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:51:55 Robert Noland wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:36 -0800, vehemens wrote:
I believe that moving away from the current model makes it more
difficult
to ... spread the burden ..., hence my objections. If you want to
call
that ranting or complaining, so
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Robert Noland rnol...@2hip.net wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
...
I think we pissed one person off, not people, as I said, there are two
people registered as BSD maintainers for drm code, oga and rnoland,
neither of them cared. I'm
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie
I haven't published any of my work recently, but that doesn't mean I haven't
done anything that I would like to share. Not sure why you feel this is
important however.
I gave you a number of suggestions in private emails on how to fix problems
such as the merging issue and you were
On Saturday 28 November 2009 13:44:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
I haven't published any of my work recently, but that doesn't mean I
haven't done anything that I would like to share. Not sure why you feel
this is important however.
I gave you a number of suggestions in private emails on how to
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 16:21:58 Robert Noland wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 13:38 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sun,
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
The headers in include/drm will be installed and libdrm_radeon
should be updated to use those headers instead of the ones in
radeon/ since they're what's
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
The headers in include/drm will be installed and libdrm_radeon
should be updated to use
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:43 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/23 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 12:13 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Pekka Paalanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:07 +0100
Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:55 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
The headers in
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
people that you do not.
Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
maintainers used it, you can just get it back by branching from the commit
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
people that you do not.
Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 19:01 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of
people that you do not.
Its git,
On Friday 20 November 2009 14:20:41 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number of people
that you do not.
Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
maintainers used it, you can just get it back by branching from the commit
before its removal, if you think revival is needed,
2009/11/19 Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 11:33 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:54:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
Yes, but the positive side is that distros using a standard/old (about
a year) kernel don't need to crawl the old libdrm repo and find the
right version (in your case they have to do this ° backport stuff) ...
I think that plus
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 20:54 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:54:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
Yes, but the positive side is that distros using a standard/old (about
a year) kernel don't need to crawl the old libdrm repo and find the
right version (in your case
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 08:33:30 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, vehemens vehem...@verizon.net wrote:
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 08:33:30 Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git
repo.
Ok, here's an update to the
2009/11/17 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits
2009/11/17 Stephane Marchesin marche...@icps.u-strasbg.fr:
2009/11/17 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in
[oops, with reply-all this time]
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:07, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100
Stephane Marchesin marche...@icps.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
And how do I get releases of libdrm out outside of kernel releases?
We're doing libdrms at
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:53:22 +0100
Stephane Marchesin marche...@icps.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:07, Jesse Barnes
jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100
Stephane Marchesin marche...@icps.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
And how do I get releases of libdrm
Le 09/11/2009 00:14, Robert Noland a écrit :
There are any number of changes that may occur in libdrm that do not
impact the KBI and users should be able to get those features/bug fixes
without needing a new kernel.
Absolutely. In fact, one of the biggest Intel performance wins lately
was in
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:51, Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le 09/11/2009 00:14, Robert Noland a écrit :
There are any number of changes that may occur in libdrm that do not
impact the KBI and users should be able to get those features/bug fixes
without needing a new kernel.
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
Okay, well in any case nothing in what you mentioned prevents the
libdrm from living with the kernel. We could keep the compat stuff
here, and we still have the advantages I mentioned.
So is there any other reason for not putting it with the kernel?
I know BSD
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 17:42, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100,
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 22:23:46 +0100, Jerome Glisse wrote:
I think Joe user will install the kernel-header package of its
distribution, and libdrm should detect at configure time kernel
header version and people should take care to only enable new
libdrm stuff when libdrm find the proper
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git
repo. I've put up a repo under
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux
kernel tree, it makes sense to drop
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of
sense. Since all driver development
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
Hi,
This has come up a few time and it's
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 23:40 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 23:33, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:19 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 20:02, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 19:47 +0100,
Hi,
the broweseable libdrm GIT repository has a little typo:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/libdrm (not libdrm.git)
Kind Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?l=dri-develm=125753272918892w=2
--
Let Crystal
60 matches
Mail list logo
